search results matching tag: tough guy

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (45)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (6)     Comments (209)   

quentin tarrantino talks about reservoir dogs 1992

ulysses1904 says...

Yeah, that gabby contrived toilet mouth dialog you always find in his scripts. Some of the a-holes i work with, I call them Tarantino Tough-guys because they copy that smug chattiness. I tell them to try copying Bronson or Eastwood and keep their mouth shut.

cosmovitelli said:

overly glib cursing?

John Oliver - Ryan Lochte

LiquidDrift says...

Not only did he lie about the events, he painted himself a heroic tough guy that stood up to the gunman while his teammates sat down and cowered. Unbelievable asshole, so glad he got caught.

woman destroys third wave feminism in 3 minutes

Babymech says...

First of all, statistics aren't a game Not all of the internet is about being a tough guy winner, and sometimes some of us are just trying to explain ourselves.

Secondly, I'm not giving you links because I like links, but because I like sources. Not all sources are equal. A blog post by a conservative think tank employee and right wing activist isn't as neutral as the CDC or the US Census. Nothing is 100% 'neutral', but numbers gathered by the Labor Department are a little more transparent than a blog post by Christina Hoff Sommers. Say what you will about her, but her agenda is always very clear.

Thirdly, can you clarify your point about illegal discrimination? I don't think anybody talked about illegal discrimination, just the actual wage gap. Illegal discrimination is not necessary to establish oppression - nobody is illegally preventing women from becoming president, but we still have a historic gender gap in the oval office. Things can be shitty and in need of change even if it nothing currently illegal is going on (like the pew research polling you linked to shows). Illiteracy, for example, is a shitty phenomenon for citizens and bad for democracy, but it's not illegal; the wage gap is bad for citizens and for democracy, even when it is not illegal.

Fourthly, if you are willing to accept that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by men outside of prison, I will also concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by men in prison. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that anyway. Which is fucking awful, but doesn't mean that feminists are wrong for railing against the situation outside of prison. The are two different sectors of society, and the factors that create a rape culture in one sector do not apply so much in the other. Still awful though.

fifthly, you ended on some stuff which might just have been random thoughts, because I don't see how they fit in anywhere:

"[the existence of self-perpetuating unjust power structures] does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride" - was not said by me, ever. We should get rid of injustice even if not all men get a free ride, I think

"in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey" - can be said about all sorts of uppity oppressed groups

"this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists!" - doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her wrong, and it doesn't 'ruin' all of feminism.

"at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another. feel free to disagree." ...nobody can disagree with this because it means nothing. It's a Hallmark card. I tried to give you actual facts and you countered with "we are all humans so everything is like, always a human issue and like, opinions, man."


enoch said:

@Babymech

are we playing the numbers/statistic game?
oh goodie../claps hands
i love these games.
can i play?

since i actually agree that mens issues are different than womens in certain cases,and that you recognize that the "patriarchy" affects men as well as women.i see no reason to address something we both agree on.

so we can agree the base premise is "power vs powerlessness",and that women have a right to address this power structure,just like men do,because BOTH suffer under its influence.

but then you posted some tasty links for our enjoyment,and then made the specious claim that this somehow made your argument MORE valid.

ok..lets play by YOUR standards shall we?

1.the gender pay gap,which before 1962 may have been a valid argument,but since it is ILLEGAL to discriminate in that way in regards to pay,and if true would translate to waaay more women in the workplace (because corporations love them some dirt cheap labor).so why is this trope still trotted out?why is it given so much validity as being born as fact?when no serious economist ever sites this disparity,yet so many keep regurgitating this gap is being a real thing?

well,i will just let a feminist economist break it down for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

see? just got me one of them fancy links you like so much.

2.political power in regards to gender.well,i cant argue the statistics.there ARE more men in politics,but what your link fails to do is ask a very basic question:why?why are there more men than women?

pew research addresses that question,and is fairly in line with your link:http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

3.as for who suffers from the most sexual violence.well,according to your link which uses cdc numbers,women suffer far more,BUT (and is the statistic that the women in my video pointed out) when you include prison (which the cdc did not) that number flips on its head:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message.

just like this woman in my video is not dismissing feminism,she is disagreeing with feminisms more extreme authoritarian bullies,who because they scream louder and are more controversial..get more attention,but that does not make their position MORE important just because they are louder and more obnoxious.

in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey.

we can all agree that we all want equality,fairness and justice and the current,and historical power structures,have always sought to retain and even further their own power.which has been traditionally held by men,but this does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride,quite the opposite.

so women absolutely have a right to challenge this power structure,just as men do.what they do NOT have a right to is imposing their ideologies upon me,or this woman in my video.

this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists! just because she had the audacity to disagree with their position.

at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another.

feel free to disagree.

Most Insane Footage Yet From The China Explosion

MilkmanDan says...

Maybe you're right, but to me that didn't sound like jubilation or delight. It sounded like awe and adrenaline mixed into shock. I even took their decision to "go down" at the end as a hint that they may have been going to try to *help* anyone that was caught closer to the blast(s).


I don't mean this to be a "cool story bro" or "internet tough guy" thing, but: About a year ago there was a house fire (pretty roaring fire, but limited to 1 room) across the street from me. Nobody was home, but I didn't know that at the time. When I saw it, verbally my brain went to mush -- I was just saying "oh shit" about like these guys, over and over. But, the adrenaline and thinking that someone might be stuck in the house whipped me into action. I ended up putting out a good chunk of the fire with hose and buckets before the fire department got there about 15 mins later, and the firemen later said that it may well have spread out of control if I hadn't gotten a partial jump on it.

BUT, in my adrenaline fueled shock, I had forgotten to put on shoes, and had cut up my bare feet a bit by running around on glass that the fire had broken out of a window. Plus, I had rather stupidly been pumping in water via hose and bucket, while standing in a puddle, next to a house that still had mains power going into it...

After the event, my wife specifically said that I had sounded "weird" and not like myself, and hadn't really been particularly coherent in verbalizing what I was planning to do. Anyway, due to the shock and surprise, I'm ready to give these dudes the benefit of the doubt with regards to their weird and potentially "inappropriate" sounding voices and statements.

lucky760 said:

Nah, I have pretty solid confidence I would never react to a disaster with jubilation. I've witnessed some hairy shit in my life (nothing this massive of course), but I've never reacted by prancing about just absolutely tickled pink with joy.

Speaking of other videos, how many of the other people who caught this on tape sounded like these fucking retards? I've watched many. I've heard none.

newtboy (Member Profile)

Man Choked And Arrested For Filming Baton Rouge Police

newtboy says...

I understand your point, but I disagree.
True, they CHARGED him with failure to disperse, along with public intoxication, battery on police, and resisting arrest, and we can see clearly that most of their accusations (delineated in the link) were lies. Also, they didn't arrest the woman standing with him or any of the other bystanders (except the one 'friend' that touched a cop), which to me indicated that was not an issue for them at any time. Also, he was in a small alcove off the sidewalk, not in anyone's way or interfering, unlike several bystanders. The closest officer comes over to him, walking around numerous others to get there, only when the cell phone is noticed. It looked to me like he was going for the phone himself, then went 'tough guy' when he complained about the theft by officer 2.
That's why it seems clear to me they arrested him for filming them and made up other charges later, it's almost certainly the reason they stole his phone. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my take.
And @speechless is right, I couldn't fit all that in the title. ;-)

messenger said:

Whenever I see a title like, "<someone> arrested for <something>", it's invariably not exactly the case.

Here, he was arrested for refusing to get out of the way of police. Also, when he started filming, the police stole his phone, assaulted him, and lied in an affidavit about what happened. Any of that would also have made a good title. Why not just say what really happened?

B Dolan-which side are you on?

eric3579 says...

Who let the torch passed fall in the tall grass?
Fire alarm wire’s disarmed, what do you call that?
Call it predictable political cliche
So when the movie ends, the revolution’s dead. Replay
the sequence of events that led to these deep divisions;
I’ve realized that all the wrong people are in prison.
The children wanna know if I believe in the Reptilians!
I tell em ‘I don’t know’ but on the TV I see lizards.
When action was in fashion you were such an easy mimic!
Bumpersticker quote lifting, crib note statistics,
Grasp for the straw man, born again cynics
Fair-weather firebrand; spark my suspicion.
We knew you were the type to take the fight like a gimmick,
and rock the t-shirt when your sweat wasn’t in it.
The clock is still ticking for the victim of the future,
You’re waiting til’ they look like you to ever choose but–
Chorus:
Which Side Are You On?
Which Side Are You On?
(Damn)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask the Industry.)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask an Emcee.)
Verse 2:
Who wrote the greatest lines of our generation,
but couldn’t get from under their own small-minded hate trip?
The same rappers say they’re trooping the frontlines,
and casually use the word ‘Faggot’ as a punchline.
That’s not a man, that’s not a tough guy.
That is a sucker and a fraud to the culture!
Hip Hop is folk music grown from the struggle and
half these fools could put the mic down and run as a Republican.
Fuck ‘em then; they learn from their own wrong.
Homophobes don’t go to my shows, we too strong!
And if you’re in the front row, harassing girls during a song
I will reach and ask you exactly–
Chorus:
Which Side Are You On?
Which Side Are You On?
Verse 3:
I’m on the side of poor people getting organized;
I’m on the side of Choice where it is in short supply;
I’m on the side of those the system doesn’t authorize;
L-G-B-T We are on the side of Pride,
Justice and Equality;
Egypt to Wisconsin when they march against the Policy;
If you bringing down a King I’m on your side probably.
Kids’ll give me shit for this it really doesn’t bother me.
They were not around when we were wrestling with poverty.
So I follow none and ask no-one to follow me
Use your own mind, use your heart and your anger
Check yourself because Apathy is a cancer
And let your action be the answer.
Chorus
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask your government)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask your media)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask yourself)
Which Side Are You On?
Sample:
Don’t scab for the bosses,
Don’t listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven’t got a chance
Unless we organize.

Speedo On A Plane Gone Wrong

Musician arrested for singing in subway

speechless says...

The cop called in for backup after a severe and unsustainable bout of cognitive dissonance (reading aloud in his own voice the law that proved he was wrong).

Unable to process this information because his fragile concept of self is shattered publicly and captured on video to the cheers of the crowd, but yet also trying to reason with the madness in his mind, he decides that "ejecting" is better than "arresting". Fully knowing that both solutions are wrong.

Fearful, because his brain is scrambling like an egg in a blender, he moves far away from what is really just a man standing alone singing. Moves away because somehow he is unable, unsafe as an NYPD cop, to handle a man armed only with a guitar and a voice. He needs backup.

With all of his bravery, and hand on his holster, he marches back to the musician and takes the guitar away, but the song keeps on playing.

Literally unable (4:37) to physically affect an arrest or "ejection" against a completely docile and non-resisting "suspect", our embarrassed crime fighter lets everyone know it's none of their business.

But don't worry, help arrives at last! (6:03) And now officer illiterate can be a tough guy hero in front of his cop buddies and manhandle the dangerous singer. See? He didn't even need their help. He was just biding his time for the right opportunity to capture that criminal guitar player.

Officer Friendly is NOT your friend

VoodooV says...

your position is quite immovable....so that doesn't say much about you either.

you don't have to change your mind...but we do? that's rather selfish.

you conflate any criticism of any cop with judging all cops, which is a bullshit argument. There are lots of videos here that demonstrate good, professional cops.

Not only that but every single criticism of a cop on this sift is backed up with a video demonstrating first hand evidence of a cop behaving badly. Where's your evidence to refute it? "just trust me?" Yeah, that doesn't cut it along with your admission that its ok for a cop to lie.

You dance back and forth from being an internet tough guy to pretending that you're so victimized by the people on this site that you voluntarily visit and comment on. You're giving us all whiplash.

"A lot of what I write is intended for those who just read but don't comment"

Then you've come to the wrong site sonny. Once again, you've made a very dumb mistake.

lantern53 said:

Mordhaus, we are on the same page.

A lot of what I write is intended for those who just read but don't comment. I am trying to reach those who would like an insight. Many here have come to their own immovable attitude.

Officer Friendly is NOT your friend

Officer Friendly is NOT your friend

newtboy jokingly says...

Uh oh! I better put my rubbers on then.....
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Tough-guy-cop-makes-good

Mordhaus said:

You just have to remember Lantern that there are two unwritten rules when it comes to Videosift commentary.

1. Never, in any way, show support for the police.
2. Never show support or defend religion.

If you do either of those things, you will be shat upon as if it was a downpour and you neglected to bring an umbrella.

Last Week Tonight - Ferguson and Police Militarization

lantern53 says...

I think if I could just smash voodoo in the face one time that he would learn some manners because he does wallow in glee whenever he is able to troll someone, push all their buttons, and get away with it. Voodoo is not civil and needs to know that there are limits. Voodoo is the 'internet tough guy'. He knows that I cannot reach through the cloud and bust his nose.

Having said that, I have never struck anyone in 30 yrs of law enforcement experience. I have wrestled a few women, restrained a few men, tased one guy who was resisting arrest, never shot at anyone or used an asp on anyone.

I get along with everyone except for people who are temporarily full of themselves with attitude, but it's remarkable how docile people get after a few days in jail (I don't put them there, the court does). People with the biggest attitudes really go through a change of heart. I treat them kindly and considerately and get great results. I feel that if I treat them kindly that the next time they are less likely to assault another police officer.

Last Week Tonight - Ferguson and Police Militarization

VoodooV says...

To be fair to lantern, he said "smash his face in" in reference to me in the lounge when I wasn't there. So it wasn't like it was a direct threat, so I apologize for embellishing a bit. but yeah. Lantern obviously forgot that the Lounge is recorded for everyone to see for many days. He also seems to forget that everyone can see his comment history and all the other retarded and racist things he has said over the years.

So while it MAY NOT have been a "threat" per se. It shows a propensity for violence when mere words are exchanged.

Standard Internet Tough Guy syndrome.

It doesn't even matter if he is a cop or not. Either way it makes him look bad. Either he's lying about being a cop. Or he is a cop and he's just a desk jockey talking tough. Or he is actually on the streets and we've seen first hand how quick to anger and racist he is (not to mention insecure). No scenario paints him in a good light.

And this is why you don't make appeals to authority. It's a logical fallacy in the first place and when you try to bring RL into an internet debate without using the disclaimer that it's all anecdotal anyway (there's that word again Lantern, maybe you really should look it up), it usually means your arguments don't have their own merits and it just devolves into "my dad can beat up your dad" mentality which pretty much means you've lost.

dannym3141 said:

Seriously? Threatening someone over the internet is a sign of the kind of person who has a lot of front but no follow up. The kind of person that might try to intimidate someone but immediately relieve themselves in their trousers when they get called out on it. A weak person with a complex about inadequacy.

Having now watched the video, it fills me with dread to know that there are people like @lantern53 and @bobknight33 that would, with their head held high, say that they stand with the kind of police that i just saw say, on video, "bring it you animals" in any context to anyone or anything.

Last Week Tonight - Ferguson and Police Militarization

VoodooV says...

Still angry about that small sample size eh? still haven't looked up anecdotal either I see.

That's a very poor definition of thug, as that actually describes life in general.

traditions are ALWAYS challenged and eventually put down, convention is ALWAYS challenged and put down, Laws are always challenged and changed. Social responsibility is an ever changing term

30 years as a cop means nothing, it's just a pathetic appeal to authority fallacy, and you just being insecure...again, about a great many things, which prompts you to play your tired Internet Tough Guy routine. The 90s called, they want their early internet "debate" tactics back.

as a former cop (gee, wonder why you aren't anymore) you should know that you are answerable to the taxpayers...That means I'm your boss dipshit. not the other way around, your former coworkers would do well to remember that.

you push us? we push back.

funny, I don't see the thug term being applied to any white criminals. just the black ones.

Anarchist? are you deaf blind and dumb? (oops, my bad, of course you are)

choggie and blankfist are/were the resident anarchists. Both were banned and my comment history shows me arguing with them constantly. You don't like to read though do you..

You just aren't very good at this are you.

lantern53 said:

Wrong again, brainiac. Thug is a word that describes living the 'thug life', you know...disregard for tradition, convention, laws, social responsibility.

A thug is a criminal, someone who commits a shoplifting by force, a felony in most jurisdictions.

naturally, you being an anarchist... the cops are always wrong.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon