I do a search of siftbot's comments. It is easier to use because the badges have visuals.

Then again, it is slower to use because one has to scroll through more physical space.

I'll stick with my method.

>> ^radx:

Regularly. It's a quick way to see if anyone has reached a milestone recently and congrats might be in order.

Regularly. It's a quick way to see if anyone has reached a milestone recently and congrats might be in order.

The false dichotomy is in Olbermann's call for Jean Quan to resign. It has nothing to do with the tactics that OPD employed.
You misunderstand me if you think I'm in support of Quan and the Police's actions. I simply think that overblown rhetoric doesn't make for good journalism. The debate would better be served by reason and reporting than by appeals to emotion. I don't need Keith Olbermann to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about violence. Perhaps it's a radical thought, but I trust people to be able to make up their own minds.
>> ^rougy:

>> ^Sayja:
"Provocative attention grabbing sentence. Patronizing set up. Shame on you. Hyperbole. Shame on you. False analogy. Outrage. Ad hominem! False Dilemma!"
Fuck this. As a resident of Oakland, I deplore seeing more violence in a city already plagued by violence. I would much rather see the city act in support its citizen's right to speak out against injustice. However, I'm fed up with seeing Olbermann and the clowns he left at MSNBC abuse such childish tactics. I refuse to pat someone on the back simply because they've become a yelling head for our side. Is the intended implication that we're not smart enough to make our own judgements in reaction to this footage?
The way I see it, Olbermann is left with only one false dichotomy: learn how to practice journalism and contribute to the meaningful debate that our country needs or resign.

Yeah?
A false dichotomy? I don't see where that equates to riot gear cops shooting people with rubber bullets and lobbing shock grenades into the crowd.
I think you're on the wrong side here, boy.

>> ^Sayja:

"Provocative attention grabbing sentence. Patronizing set up. Shame on you. Hyperbole. Shame on you. False analogy. Outrage. Ad hominem! False Dilemma!"
Fuck this. As a resident of Oakland, I deplore seeing more violence in a city already plagued by violence. I would much rather see the city act in support its citizen's right to speak out against injustice. However, I'm fed up with seeing Olbermann and the clowns he left at MSNBC abuse such childish tactics. I refuse to pat someone on the back simply because they've become a yelling head for our side. Is the intended implication that we're not smart enough to make our own judgements in reaction to this footage?
The way I see it, Olbermann is left with only one false dichotomy: learn how to practice journalism and contribute to the meaningful debate that our country needs or resign.


Yeah?

A false dichotomy? I don't see where that equates to riot gear cops shooting people with rubber bullets and lobbing shock grenades into the crowd.

I think you're on the wrong side here, boy.

"Provocative attention grabbing sentence. Patronizing set up. Shame on you. Hyperbole. Shame on you. False analogy. Outrage. Ad hominem! False Dilemma!"

Fuck this. As a resident of Oakland, I deplore seeing more violence in a city already plagued by violence. I would much rather see the city act in support its citizen's right to speak out against injustice. However, I'm fed up with seeing Olbermann and the clowns he left at MSNBC abuse such childish tactics. I refuse to pat someone on the back simply because they've become a yelling head for our side. Is the intended implication that we're not smart enough to make our own judgements in reaction to this footage?

The way I see it, Olbermann is left with only one false dichotomy: learn how to practice journalism and contribute to the meaningful debate that our country needs or resign.

>> ^BoneRemake:
I bet we are in a marble sized universe like in MEN IN BLACK.


Not even that big.

Our universe is simply what you would see if you could see into the nucleus of an atom. It would look just like a swarm of galaxies orbiting around a central point of origin (the nucleus). But it's complex and ever-changing simply because, from the way we see it (from inside the atom), we can't tell that the arrow of time is cycling our universe through representations of every atom that has ever existed.

I think the problem of perception comes from the fact that all the atoms that have ever existed (the ones that the universe represents) were all created from the particle accelerator at CERN. That's why the universe is expanding faster and faster. Because all the atoms that it represents were created in a huge vacuum to begin with.

I don't know why nobody else reaches the obvious conclusion. Or why I always feel the need to explain it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm going to argue it in a different way and see if it changes your opinion.

I believe the war is maintained not for our safety, not for other nations safety, not to catch terrorists, not to prevent anything, but to directly funnel money into corporate pockets and in turn the very same people who support the war going on via donations and lobbyists.

Now, these same people are more than willing to cut benefits of teachers, government unions, and also seem to keep bringing up social security/medicare/medicaid. Plus the other myriad of programs they want to cut or eliminate........or PRIVATIZE, which is their word for turning public facilities to private gains that the government still has to pay for but has a company squatting over taking profits off the top of everything.

Now, here's where my other argument comes in. What if the tax rate was high enough on every person in these little "money circle jerks" that they couldn't keep enough of it to make it worthwhile and still bribe/donate to people?

I mean look at the ForaTV top15 video right now where he says in the 50s people making over 200k were taxed at 91 percent, so that would basically mean that making 2 million today would be the cut off for the sub 91 percent rate.

It would mean that people getting bribed and making in excess of a million dollars would need more bribe money to get the same benefit. It would mean people doing the bribing would have less money to bribe with.

I mean let's put it this way:

If you were working a job making 100 grand a year. New tax law comes in and now they want to take 75% of earnings after 100 grand. It would effectively make it so that you earning more money at your job would result in almost no benefit to you, so now money is off the table as an effective bargaining tool to use with you. That leaves other things to take into consideration when the money can't really be factored in anymore, and for politicians the only other things I can imagine as bargaining tools would be giving them houses/cars/etc and offering them jobs after their political career.....where they would be limited by the tax rates on their earnings. It'd make me a lot less willing to be a dirtbag if I could only make 1 million dollars versus the 60 some odd million some of these CEOs are getting without the majority of it being taken in taxes.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^messenger:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.

So you understand there's a deficit, and the only way to reduce it is increase income (taxes), and/or reduce spending (cuts). Take a look at where the spending cuts are going to come from, and then decide if you want those cuts to be made. Cronyism, imperialism, war and all those other things we both hate are what the government does for fun. Until a true statesman is elected, they're never going to be cut. So what will get cut instead? Things that actually benefit the people living in the country. I'm not American so I don't know what your federal government provides in that regard, but either you're glad those services exist and are happy to pay for them with your taxes, or you need to include them in the list of things you'd like to have cut.

This is the part I don't understand. Yes, there are services that are useful, but the majority of what they spend their money on are immoral things I disagree with that put our lives in jeopardy over here. Wars and occupation have made us less safe. I don't care that they spend some of the money on things I agree with. They spend the most of it on things I don't.
I voluntarily support the ACLU, but if they started drowning kittens, I'd most likely pull my money from them. This is the ideological discussion we should be having about government right now. They're spending more than we as the people can afford and yet both parties are refusing to cut defense spending.
If we cut a large portion of our defense spending (the portion that puts us in overseas entanglements) we might be able to balance the budget and cut income tax completely. Why aren't we having that discussion instead of being defeatists about what the government will cut? Because people in favor of raising taxes are scared that cutting income tax may lead to less entitlement programs, so they're willing to bomb people over it. That's why.

It is utterly scary to think of the mindset that thinks that two people having consensual sex in any way they see fit can/should be regarded as illegal.

I would like to rule that he cannot have that hairstyle that he does. FELONY OFFENCE mister, FELONY.

Now that I've watched the WHOLE thing. A lot of those were scripted, at least in part. Many of them the actor went beyond the scripted action/dialogue, but they were still scripted, not pure ad-lib.

"You talkin' to me?" Is a good example. DeNiro was actually practising his lines, trying it out all the different ways to see what worked best, they decided to just film the whole thing because it worked so well.

Still, Malkovich scene, totally scripted, there are plenty of scripts out there, look it up for yourself.

(LYRICS)

(Chorus opening)

There I was havin’ a good hard shit for myself
After the parsnips,peas,cauliflower the lump o leek and de brussels sprout
All inside in me,dyin’ ta get out it was and shur what could i do i had to go
And i’m readin de oul sunday paper,as you do you never know what you might see like and I turn the page and theres this big fuckoff ad for Eminem live in the point depot, and who comes in de door only my little brother Matthew(matcho)
Runs in the the door sees the ad runs downstairs to mammy “Eh mammy mammy Eminems comin to de point depot,mammy mammy Eminem live at the point depot can i go mammy can i please please mammy can i go?” Bastard!
Mammy tells me to go an get tickets I go and get tickets, I’m standin’ outside HMV for 17 an a half fuckin’ hours,with nothin but a flask of turnip soup I had last sundaay and a fuckin’ sleepin bag...Frozen to my balls I was and muppets all round me screamin’ an roarin’ an shoutin’ ‘cleanin out dere closet,cleanin out dere closet’ langers on a half a bottle of fuckin’ smirnoff ice, but shur what can you do wit em?, dere muppets de whole lot of em’
Nonetheless dey move,I move, we all move, I finally get up to de counter
“Eh 2 tickets for Eminem” “Thats 50 euro per ticket and 4.50 bookin’ fee”
“Whats the bookin' fee for?? I booked nothin standin here for 17 1/2 fuckin hours, no credit card, no nothin. Fuckin MCD robbin bastards,robbin’ bastards de whole lot of em but I’ll tell you 1 thing, ye met yer match lads Ha Ha!

(Chorus)

Bus Eireann,deres another shower o right muppets altogether 20 euro a piece for myself an matthew....8 1/2 hours and I standin the whole fuckin way from Limerick to Dublin! When does it ever take 8 1/2 hours to go from Limerick to Dub..I’d fuckin’ swim to New York quicker! And It a broken down heap o shit an all it was and blated punctures and bumps,every bump was like a fuckin crater of a moon it was,
Nonetheless we finally get there had to queue outside de point depot for another 2 1/2 hours, half way through the queue some muppet feels my balls “Have you got a camera?” he says....Have I got a camera,I can’t stand the sight of the peroxide fuckers head an he’s askin me have I a camera?! I can’t take a shit,make a hang sangwich an de fuckers lookin’ back at me. I’m only up here for matcho you know!!
Jesus I get in I hadda queue for a burger ('cos Matthew wanted a burger) I hadda queue for a pint,I hadda queue for a piss! Everything,you can’t even make a phone call and some muppets on the line “Eh your call is important to us,please stay on the li….Fuck you ya bastard! Fuckin Eircom robbin bastards! Robbin bastards de whole lot of em,robbin de country blind, fuckin’ government don’t have a clue whats goin’ on in this country!
Nonetheless we’re pushin an we’re squeezin an shovin tryin to make it up to de front for Matcho (Hes only small hes only up to my arse,hes only six, like)...and of course I’m fartin de whole way up coz I couldn’t go to the toilet coz I couldn’t get inta de queue!! And his mouth was open an all and he’s dere “Ah Stan are we near the front yit Stan, Eh stan Are we near the front I can’t breathe stan eh... “We’re nearly dere now hold onto yourself boy!
We finally get there Hes all excited hes on my shoulders,I’m all excited coz hes all excited We came all dis way for you,just for you…..and you send out some black fella…..a big fat black fella an the back of his trousers down his arse. And him roarin into the microphone ‘Whos ur nigger,whos ur nigger ur niggers in da house, Jenny's on the block..” Well I’ll tell u one thing Jenny Suck my fuckin’ cock!!! We didn’t come all this way to see u or no one like u! Jez who are you? Nobody gives a shit about or no one else! We came here to see 1 man 1 man only, do me a favor will u?
GET OFF DA FUCKIN STAGE!!!!!!!

(Chorus)

Out you finally saunter with your vest wrapped round you good an tight,an oul hangy baggy pants on you and nonetheless an oul pair o nike runners on you
an you screamin into the microphone! how u were fucked in the arse when you were 5, Thats not my fuckin problem you know! We’ve all got issues we’ve all got problems,I’ve a wife that hates me,Ive a child that I love but shur what can we do about em? We don’t go rantin an ravin to the public about how fuckin brilliant we are, how our lives are all fucked up an I want to put my wife in a bodybag an drive her over the edge of a cliff. Well I’ll put you in my bodybag ya bastard! I’ll drive you over the edge of a bridge or a cliff or a mountain or somethin! Don’t go rantin an ravin with ur la de da de da bout your hoosit an wtsit in the world!! I have issues here in the world and I’ll tell u 1 ting!If I’m goin down I’m takin’ you with me coz ur nothin but an ape! And I’ll tell u somethin else,I’ll rip ur liver out thru yer arse! BASTARD!!!!

(Epilogue)

"Dear stan, you sad, sad little man....why do you think I should give a shit about you or your little brother Matthew, it's fuckin' apes like you that are making me a fortune, I'm worth a FORTUNE....I release an album, you buy the album, I release a single & you buy every single song off it, I mean why do you buy it twice...why why?? You queue for hours you buy tickets, I can't even get a passport leave my own country & the likes of you are still out there buying all my shit that I pump out...so what if I'm moanin' and groanin'?....I'm worth a fortune, I couldn't care less about you, anyone, no-one...I LOVE it...I'm worth so much money, it's SICK...I'm sick to my teeth with money...I'm loaded, I am loaded....I'm fuckin' LOOOOOOOAAAAAADDDEDDDDD!!!!"

(Chorus)

>> ^residue:

cripes.. it's common policy to look for ways to bring stuff into a channel when it's new to sort of spread the word about a new channel option. Contrary to what @xxovercastxx said in his original comment, "frankenstein" himself is within the guidelines of the new "undead" channel. "Things that are alive that shouldn't be" sort of deal. Why isn't anyone upset that the cat ISN'T REALLY FRANKENSTEIN, HEY NORSUELFANTTI YOU BETTER GET IN HERE AND FIX YOUR MISLEADING TITLE
I didn't see anyone getting butthurt over this:
http://undead.videosift.com/video/Cat-Zombies-Would-Be-Unstoppable
so I went with a similar gag.
>> ^solecist:
>> ^residue:
HEY! Isn't frankenstein...... undead!?
also quality

seriously, who upvoted this? are you guys all in some sort of channel ruining gang?



Way I see it you very probably should not be tagging videos simply based on words in the title. If I clicked the Undead channel I would honestly not expect to see this video.
To hammer home the point, imagine there's an electric guitar in the background - do we tag that then as Rock?

>> ^marbles:

I don't think speeding is necessarily a victimless crime. But prostitution is. Gambling is. What’s your point?


My point is victimhood isn't part of what constitutes a crime. My larger point is you're constantly using "is" when what you mean to say is "should be". A crime is a violation of law. You may believe that there shouldn't be laws against activities that don't have a particularized victim, but that doesn't mean prostitution isn't a crime, it means you think it shouldn't be a crime.

It's the difference between telling someone "I am the richest man in the world," and "I should be the richest man in the world."

>> ^marbles:
We are biologically programed to seek life. A newborn naturally suckles a nipple and instinctively holds his breath under water. These are not learned behaviors. We are entitled to life. Property is an extension of life. It’s the representation of the inherent right to control the fruits of one's own labor. Surely a prehistoric man believed he was entitled to control an uninhabited cave he found, an animal he killed or captured, or anything he built or created.

So anything you feel entitled to, you're entitled to?

Moreover, primitive man had lots of impulses -- rape women that were caught their fancy, steal from people too weak to stop them, kill people they didn't like, etc. Then you get to the more grand delusional impulses, like "I speak for the Sun god, so do as I say or he'll burn you for eternity after you die".

The feeling of entitlement to enclose and deny the use of portions of nature to others likely only came about after agriculture, and even then largely in the form tribal land ownership, not individual ownership.

>> ^marbles:
Ok, I’ll bite. If you deny 100% self-ownership (i.e. the philosophy of liberty as described in this video), then that leaves only 2 other options. Option 1: Universal and equal ownership of everyone else (i.e. Communism) Option 2: Partial Ownership of One Group by Another (e.g. Feudalism) Option 1 is unachievable and unsustainable. Option 2 is a system of rule by one class over another.

It seems to me that there's a lot more than 2 options. Over here in my way of seeing the world, property is just a social convention. I am my body, I don't merely own it.

Ownership is meaningless when there's no one else around. Ownership is meaningless if there's no societal impetus to adhere to the convention of property.

So on the score of "self-ownership", I mostly think your relationship to your body is qualitatively different from the relationship to inanimate objects you might acquire through labor or other economic interactions. Taking my property is stealing, taking my body is kidnapping. Damaging property isn't the same as violent assault on a person. Trespassing is not equivalent to rape.

>> ^NetRunner:
The only thing we're trying to do is get you to broaden your perspective a little. We're being polite about the fact that you seem to think us evil (or perhaps just stupid) for believing what we believe, and we're trying to help you understand a little bit of why we think the way we do, and see that maybe we're not monsters after all...>> ^marbles:
LOL@“We're being polite”
Why are you talking in “we” and not “I”? And if it makes you feel better by putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head, then fine. But that's not why I dismissed your claim that this is only the “objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty”.
I think the crux of the problem is you like to label everything instead of just accepting it for what it is. Political issues and figures are full of delusions and deceptions. You do yourself a disservice by putting everything into one ideological box or another. I know plenty of “libertarians” that don’t have a problem with the patriot act and plenty of “progressives” that don’t have a problem with the cold-blooded murder of OBL. The political false dichotomy left/right survives because of people like you and, ironically, the guy warning about black and white thinking.


I used the pronoun "we" because I think that paragraph was descriptive of several of the people who engaged with you here, not just me.

I think you misunderstand my meaning when I labeled it as being "the objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty", I'm mostly just pointing out that the definition you're presenting is just one view of the concept, and not the defining conception of liberty. I'm not pigeonholing it and dismissing it, I'm just saying that the proper phrasing here is "This is what liberty is to me", not "This is what liberty is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong".

My view of liberty is no less valid than yours, and if you assert that it is invalid without demonstrating even a rough working knowledge of what I (or even liberals generally) actually believe, then it's you who's pigeonholing and dismissing things, not me.

As far as "the guy warning about black and white thinking", I'm mostly just in favor of thinking. It seems to me that if you go around believing that there are some simple, arbitrary rules that govern all of human morality, and refuse to entertain any skeptical critique of the nature or validity of those rules, then that's not thinking.

Now that's a great way to point out an arguement, and I agree mostly with the points

In reply to this comment by StimulusMax:
After reading your more recent post, I do have to agree with you to some extent. I do believe that if you are going to belong to or support a group, you have a responsibility to address and/or distance yourself from the extremists who identify with that group. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's fair to tell people that they have to find a new label to distinguish themselves from the more extreme elements of their group. Feminists should not have to find a new name themselves because misandrists sometimes call themselves feminists.

Another analogy. Let's say I'm born a Jew. My entire family is Jewish, and the only ethno-cultural traditions I practice are Jewish. I agree that's it's my responsibility to decry the oppressive actions of the Jewish state, but do I have to give up my Judaism because I think Israel is extreme? That seems counter-intuitive to me, as part of the strength of my position would be to say, as a Jew, this state does not represent me.

Let's flip this on it's head. There are militant atheists. Should we not call ourselves atheists to distance ourselves from their extremism?

Or should we surrender our citizenship because we don't agree with the actions of our country? Talk about a slippery slope. My point with the Republican comment is that it is illogical to ask moderates to surrender their identity because of the existence of a few associated extremists. Not only is it unfair, but it robs the moderates of the position of power from which they are best equipped to deal with the extremists.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/StimulusMax" title="member since May 29th, 2010" class="profilelink">StimulusMax
You note that to win you have to associate with undesirables; a slippery slope if ever I heard of one. Isn’t the Tea Party part of those “undesirable” elements the Republican Party must associate with or lose? We actually see this happening in elections around America. Without their support, both the GOP and it's candidates are bombing...Either the GOP is the friend of the Tea Party right now, or their party becomes a fractured base 3rd party; or as you say, they will belong to a Party that has no chance of succeeding...
So, why? For the same reason Christians need to hold back their rouge elements.


And how do you propose to create that equality if we're not allowed to recognize groups as oppressed and treat them as such?

I am not for one instant arguing that we should take away anybody's rights. What I'm suggesting is that there needs to be ways to balance inequality of privileges. To reiterate, I in no way endorse the sort of "revenge" that the women on this show were laughing about, but do take issue with comments, like Blankfist's above, that suggest that oppression isn't our responsibility. We benefit from it, we should own it. We should be willing to make the necessary concessions to offset the inequality resulting from that oppression.

There's an idea for you: maybe we wouldn't have to discuss Nietzschean ideas of revenge if those in positions of privilege were more proactive.

Here's an analogy: Five people are doing the same job. Four of them make barely enough to scrape by, and the fifth arbitrarily makes three times as much. Is it "revenge" for the four to want the fifth to divy up the extra so they all make the same amount? What if all they're asking is that the fifth reinvest a bit so that they can all make more?

I'm sure some people will just say "too bad, life's unfair, it's not my fault I am where I am". And I agree, it's not your fault. But it might mean you have a bit of extra responsibility.

What, you don't like that you have a bit of extra responsibility? Well too bad, life's unfair.

>> ^draak13:

While I do strongly agree that there are many schools of though on feminism, and that we shouldn't let the more ridiculous people paint the entire concept as invalid as the commentator was advertising, it is alarming how this relatively small school of feminist radicals is not so small. As was pointed out, it is not just just 3 or 4 women, it was the entire audience on set. Furthermore, it was a significant portion of the home viewers, as evidenced by how much outrage this clip has not caused. Female genital mutilation does happen in third world countries as a form of oppression. The concept angers most people in a developed society. The opposite should be just as true.
You, and several others, have commented that it is the way of things that the group with higher rights will experience diminished rights as the lower groups crawl up to equality. This is an incredibly false notion, which borderlines the notion of 'revenge.' An injustice cannot be solved by creating another injustice; the problem is merely being moved around, rather than solved. The solution is to create proper equality.
>> ^StimulusMax:
You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.
To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?

After reading your more recent post, I do have to agree with you to some extent. I do believe that if you are going to belong to or support a group, you have a responsibility to address and/or distance yourself from the extremists who identify with that group. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's fair to tell people that they have to find a new label to distinguish themselves from the more extreme elements of their group. Feminists should not have to find a new name themselves because misandrists sometimes call themselves feminists.

Another analogy. Let's say I'm born a Jew. My entire family is Jewish, and the only ethno-cultural traditions I practice are Jewish. I agree that's it's my responsibility to decry the oppressive actions of the Jewish state, but do I have to give up my Judaism because I think Israel is extreme? That seems counter-intuitive to me, as part of the strength of my position would be to say, as a Jew, this state does not represent me.

Let's flip this on it's head. There are militant atheists. Should we not call ourselves atheists to distance ourselves from their extremism?

Or should we surrender our citizenship because we don't agree with the actions of our country? Talk about a slippery slope. My point with the Republican comment is that it is illogical to ask moderates to surrender their identity because of the existence of a few associated extremists. Not only is it unfair, but it robs the moderates of the position of power from which they are best equipped to deal with the extremists.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@StimulusMax
You note that to win you have to associate with undesirables; a slippery slope if ever I heard of one. Isn’t the Tea Party part of those “undesirable” elements the Republican Party must associate with or lose? We actually see this happening in elections around America. Without their support, both the GOP and it's candidates are bombing...Either the GOP is the friend of the Tea Party right now, or their party becomes a fractured base 3rd party; or as you say, they will belong to a Party that has no chance of succeeding...
So, why? For the same reason Christians need to hold back their rouge elements.


And how do you propose to create that equality if we're not allowed to recognize groups as oppressed and treat them as such?

I am not for one instant arguing that we should take away anybody's rights. What I'm suggesting is that there needs to be ways to balance inequality of privileges. To reiterate, I in no way endorse the sort of "revenge" that the women on this show were laughing about, but do take issue with comments, like Blankfist's above, that suggest that oppression isn't our responsibility. We benefit from it, we should own it. We should be willing to make the necessary concessions to offset the inequality resulting from that oppression.

There's an idea for you: maybe we wouldn't have to discuss Nietzschean ideas of revenge if those in positions of privilege were more proactive.

Here's an analogy: Five people are doing the same job. Four of them make barely enough to scrape by, and the fifth arbitrarily makes three times as much. Is it "revenge" for the four to want the fifth to divy up the extra so they all make the same amount? What if all they're asking is that the fifth reinvest a bit so that they can all make more?

I'm sure some people will just say "too bad, life's unfair, it's not my fault I am where I am". And I agree, it's not your fault. But it might mean you have a bit of extra responsibility.

What, you don't like that you have a bit of extra responsibility? Well too bad, life's unfair.

>> ^draak13:

While I do strongly agree that there are many schools of though on feminism, and that we shouldn't let the more ridiculous people paint the entire concept as invalid as the commentator was advertising, it is alarming how this relatively small school of feminist radicals is not so small. As was pointed out, it is not just just 3 or 4 women, it was the entire audience on set. Furthermore, it was a significant portion of the home viewers, as evidenced by how much outrage this clip has not caused. Female genital mutilation does happen in third world countries as a form of oppression. The concept angers most people in a developed society. The opposite should be just as true.
You, and several others, have commented that it is the way of things that the group with higher rights will experience diminished rights as the lower groups crawl up to equality. This is an incredibly false notion, which borderlines the notion of 'revenge.' An injustice cannot be solved by creating another injustice; the problem is merely being moved around, rather than solved. The solution is to create proper equality.
>> ^StimulusMax:
You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.
To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?

While I do strongly agree that there are many schools of though on feminism, and that we shouldn't let the more ridiculous people paint the entire concept as invalid as the commentator was advertising, it is alarming how this relatively small school of feminist radicals is not so small. As was pointed out, it is not just just 3 or 4 women, it was the entire audience on set. Furthermore, it was a significant portion of the home viewers, as evidenced by how much outrage this clip has *not* caused. Female genital mutilation does happen in third world countries as a form of oppression. The concept angers most people in a developed society. The opposite should be just as true.

You, and several others, have commented that it is the way of things that the group with higher rights will experience diminished rights as the lower groups crawl up to equality. This is an incredibly false notion, which borderlines the notion of 'revenge.' An injustice cannot be solved by creating another injustice; the problem is merely being moved around, rather than solved. The solution is to create proper equality.

>> ^StimulusMax:

You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.
To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?