long live bb king!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Hmmmmmm......commenting on stuff just because someone else said something negative despite knowing nothing more than what this guy has said in this video.........

That seems like white-knight trolling to me. When you're only interest in the topic is that someone said something negative about someone/something and you are otherwise completely uninformed on what is happening.

Is it OK that someone is bullying someone else? No. But I also don't know what the first person did to person the second off, if it's based on something or just random..... white knighting is a great way to undermine someone's ability to stand up for themselves. Doing it without them asking or being asked directly for your opinion on it, may not necessarily be helping.....it's more feeding the troll.

So, I disagree with him.

I look at it like this.... If I ask generally for an opinion on someone/something, like a car or a game. If there's handful of people who say nothing but negative things about it, but generally don't seem to be making comments based on experience...it's a waste of time for them to post it and me to read. Then I get double that amount of people showing up to give nothing but positive reviews because of those negative reviews, again these are a complete waste of their time and my time and are generally based on zero experience with thing I asked about.

The reviews that mean the most are the ones who express an opinion that seems informed, and if they base it off similar thought out reviews saying why they disagree....even better.

I can easily cull uninformed overly negative and overly positive review with time. But why waste your time and my time with these pointless commentaries? It makes it worse if you comment only because you wanted to make another uninformed comment just because you didn't like another uninformed comment.


So, white knighting is pretty much defending something that shouldn't need defended, because stupid comments are obvious. And if it's spread beyond the internet, then she needs the police and not more people commenting worthless time-wasting crap.


When I was younger, much like messenger I used to do stupid shit...I grew up before the internet really was available. During more BBS-based internet than the internet as we know it now. And would do stupid stuff such as gang up on people in comments and what not. But the other pendulum of "stupid stuff" was being overly defensive on behalf of women. They were very rarely thankful for it, assuming they were even really women.

So just take a "who cares what they are doing" approach unless you are interested in their content (not their boobs, or interested in sleeping with them, etc except if their content is their boobs/sex/etc...just don't expect them to ever notice you...ever.). And if they want to do something controversial and rile up the dumb asses on the internet, that's their choice and you SHOULDN'T have to defend them. Defend the project, defend their ability to choose, but it's not your place to white-knight for them. You'll feel stupid later when all your efforts go unnoticed by your "hero"/heart-throb/crush/whatever and you're stuck with a bunch of people who now hate your ass and you have nothing to show for your efforts. The people you defend will let you hang, there's too many white-knights for them to return the favor when you attract the attention of people who take it a little too far and start taking it off the internet. Or in other words, this guy and that woman don't give a shit about you if it were happening to you.

It seems you were the one that fell for the illogical Bareboards... Just because I stated an opinion against a person you assume that I take a stance counter to what the person is saying?

Let me make myself clear then. You are incorrect. I believe that marriage should be gifted to people that love and value each other. A man loving a man is no less beautiful than a man loving a woman. Who am I to judge, just because I am straight?

Likewise, I think a man or woman should be able to marry as he pleases. E.g., a man should be able to have three wives if he and they so choose. The law should not interfere such arrangements but support it.

You know what is ironic BB? Some gays and lesbians bash my point of view, that polygamy is acceptable, because they are bigoted against polygamy or because it inconvenient to their argument. For example, those against gay marriage bring up bestiality and polygamy as the "next logical step." They ask where these rights will end? Should a man be able to marry five wives or his dog, they say. And do most gays say, "WAIT THE FUCK UP. HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THE LOVE OF A MAN FOR MORE THAN ONE WOMEN TO THE LOVE OF AN ANIMAL?!!!!" No, no they do not. In fact, they ridicule my beliefs by stating something like, "No, nobody is talking about making bestiality or polygamy legal. Those are absurd lifestyles and will never be accepted."

I am actually shocked that they would allow the comparison, then go so far as to be derisive of other people's rights that they themselves fight tooth and nail for, and basically call those people's beliefs equal to that of pig fuckers.

You know why they do this right? For their own agenda. It's like the kid at school who is about to be picked on. That kid then turns on a weaker, more ridiculed kid and beats him up so that everyone will stop picking on him. I have only heard a few with courage enough to take the political heat and speak up for both sides...and it saddens me.

No, you won't find an argument from me against gay marriage. I am only in support of marriage equality. By pointing out to messenger that this is a rehashed argument, I merely, politely at first, was pointing out that his reason for promoting this video was a little silly. It, to me at least, was like he just woke up one day to find out that Obama won the presidency. This argument has been around for quite some time and it amused me--not at Messenger's expense.

Now, let me focus on my real discontent with the video content. Marriage for life is batshit insane. To accuse someone of having the belief that marriage is a lifelong commitment to me is a very serious accusation because marriage for life, as I have said, is batshit insane. I am equally offended when the religious nuts demean gays by accusing most of being into pedophilia. Both things I mention are batshit insane. You better have proof, at least to me, or your a bigoted asshole.

My message is clear. Don't lump people together. I would think that the persecuted, such as gays and lesbians, would understand this the most. But, in fact, it seems to be the opposite. It is okay to lump our enemies together because they do it to us...

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm guessing that you think marriage should be between "a man and a woman", @Lawdeedaw?
Because the rest of us hear this "rehash of other people's arguments" and hear someone who had done RESEARCH and APPLIED LOGIC to the topic.
Your emotional response -- and picking out one error (that I don't know is an error, I am taking your word for it) and declaiming loudly that the whole of the rest must be wrong -- smacks very strongly of an emotional, non-logical response to a series of rational statements.
Perhaps you might apply that emotional logic to your position? Maybe see that perhaps one itsy bitsy thing might be factually wrong with your position? Then you would be compelled, by your own logic, to throw out absolutely everything you believe.
Here's a proposition: Following are two statements of fact from this presentation:
1. Traditional marriage defined as "between one man and one woman" is a modern invention.
2. Denying marriage to committed gay couples is denying them the same rights and protections under the law as heterosexual couples.
Let's tack on another one -- there are plenty of Christians out there who believe that their religion is just fine with gay marriage. So why should your version of the Christian religion carry more weight in the law than their version of the Christian religion?
There is space here. Go to it. Refute those three statements with logic and facts. I'd be interested in hearing how you respond.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Not crazy about your title bb. It downplays the humanity in favor of religion and politics.
I think the world is changing, but I don't think this guy's transformation had to do with the shift towards a more progressive and tolerant culture. I think he changed because of personal experience and his capacity for empathy.
Great sift.


I see your point, but the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. The way I read the title, the rapper's humanity and empathy shines all the brighter when coming out (pardon the pun) of a black hole of bigotry and homophobia (the religious/conservative South) to which the rapper refers in his lyrics.

I'm not attached to it.

Give me a new one and I'll replace it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Not crazy about your title bb. It downplays the humanity in favor of religion and politics.
I think the world is changing, but I don't think this guy's transformation had to do with the shift towards a more progressive and tolerant culture. I think he changed because of personal experience and his capacity for empathy.
Great sift.

Not crazy about your title bb. It downplays the humanity in favor of religion and politics.

I think the world is changing, but I don't think this guy's transformation had to do with the shift towards a more progressive and tolerant culture. I think he changed because of personal experience and his capacity for empathy.

Great sift.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Great stuff, but why does it have to be called: "TEMPUS II: THE FOURTH DIMENSION!" As if some dick with a slo mo camera is doing something besides shooting crayons with a BB gun.
Give me a break.
In 360p...

Great stuff, but why does it have to be called: "TEMPUS II: THE FOURTH DIMENSION!" As if some dick with a slo mo camera is doing something besides shooting crayons with a BB gun.

Give me a break.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

>> ^rich_magnet:

Thanks for the update on the gun and the projectile speed. I was wondering what "20x faster than a bullet fired from a pistol" meant. What pistol, exactly?


And what bullet?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^notarobot:

What kind of insane gun are they using to fire that little pellet?


Surely it'd be some sort of rail or gauss gun?

An Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle.

Careful, NASA, you'll shoot your eye out!

>> ^notarobot:

What kind of insane gun are they using to fire that little pellet?