@newtboy
told ya he was pissed.
i admire this mans passion.
in fact,i applaud it.

while i do not agree with his attack therapy tactics and do not subscribe to his over-all conclusions.i absolutely ADORE how he calls out the cognitive dissonance of the american voter.

because he is right.

how can you subscribe to a law that makes prostitution illegal,yet porn legal?
or the guy who deals crack or meth as being a criminal? yet opiates are,by far,the leading cause of death in regards to controlled substances.so who is the bigger criminal?

and what,exactly,IS a criminal?is it because the state says so?if you subscribe to that,then i am a criminal.

i found his condemnation of the christian church to be the most delicious.
jesus christ was an insurrectionist,a radical,a dissident and a dissenter.a zealot in the face of the powered elite.

so how can you fight a war of aggression in jesus christs name?
how can you state that god blesses america with over 2.4 million people incarcerated?or to categorize and demonize those who may be different i.e:gay,lesbian or atheist and yet still call yourself a christian?

i giggled with delight when he pointed out that the very same people who are championing those insurrectionists,dissidents and agitators of the past as somehow being representative of their morals and ethics,are the very same people they are demonizing today for breaking the rules.

this man is so pissed off and i love it.
he says things that will make conformists extremely uncomfortable,and we NEED to be a bit uncomfortable.if only to shake off the apathy and lethargy.

as for the taxes argument..meh..i dont subscribe to the "privatize everything" ,because some things should not be profit driven,but i also do not subscribe to the 'taxes pay for essential services",unless wars of aggression,corporate welfare and big-agribusiness subsidies are considered "essential".

our democracy is broken,our government dysfunctional and serves only to keep the balance of the status quo on top..and fuck the regular dude.

can you REALLY say your government represents you?
ok,go ahead and vote.here are your choices:chocolate or vanilla but both are made by hagen daaz.

you really should watch to the end..he just gets madder and madder.
truths can often be uncomfortable,but that never changes the fact that they are truths.

and goddamn i love your optimism! just cant share it on this issue,though if you could bottle it up i am betting you would make a fortune.

ill have three bottles of newt please...to go.

there are a few inaccuracies in this video but over-all..makes a pretty strong point.
our fore-fathers did not exactly agree on the size,powers and authority the federal government should have,quite the opposite see:the federalist papers.

so the statement that the original intent was for a small centralized government is inaccurate.

but the argument over the bill of rights is fairly accurate.
hence the terms "inalienable and god-given".

i think the term indoctrination is used appropriately here.
2nd graders should not be introduced to such ideologies and most certainly not in this fashion.get em while they are young!..reprehensible.

this is ideology vs reality.
this is power vs powerlessness.
this is power abusing young minds to create a submissive and unquestioning attitude towards authority.

while the ideology may be comforting and even noble..it is a delusion when compared to the reality.

a citizen must KNOW their rights in order to fight for them.because power will ALWAYS attempt to curb or outright take those rights away and if they are able to do that (and they HAVE in many cases) then those rights are..in fact..privileges.

the "free speech zones" example is perfect.that was from st louis RNC in 2004 (i think..im recalling from memory).see? they didnt "take" away your right to free speech,they just made you do it -------> over there.

which affectively neutralized any dissent,but hey..you still had your right to free speech,just neutered and ineffectual.

to even call this educational is an insult to teachers.
its indoctrination..pure and simple.

*promote

Pelosi came out today and denied knowing Gruber and denied he has anything to do with the ACA, which is all a complete lie. Man, progressives are really showing their hands in their final dissent into political obscurity in America. So.... What did I miss?

I think it depends on the person. Some will see the 'admonishment' as a challenge offered by those with no power (remember Chingalera?) and take it as an invitation to become insanely abusive and outrageously vulgar. Others might see it as helpful to understand how their own actions are perceived by others and change the offending behavior.
It would be nice if Trance could admit why he did what he does (to himself at least), but it's far more important that he stop, understanding or not. IF he can't get the message from the community, the rules should be applied. He's had that clear message now, so the next time there should be no warning, just 2 week ban. If there's a next time after that, it's intentional or unconscious, either way that would indicate he won't stop, and at that point removal is the only option. I hope it doesn't come to that.
I don't like that many 'dissenting voices' have either left or been banned, but it's NEVER because of their viewpoint, it's because of their inappropriate actions (perhaps born from the frustration of being a lone dissenter on many topics? but that's a reason, not an excuse).
As for Dag/Lucky, I would hope their intervention is saved as a last resort, but having a Sift-Dad in charge to settle problems we can't settle amongst ourselves is a GOOD thing...if used in moderation.

why thankies!
giroux is on my heroes list.i love me some dissenters and dissidents,seems you do as well.

i think what surprises me most is that what he is saying is so non-controversial,yet he is seen as a dissident.we live in crazy,bizzaro times.

good to see your still around my friend =)

fair enough and it seems your opinion is the majority.
and thanks for replying,i usually never ask why someone downvotes but i felt that we were on pretty good terms for me the broach that question.

i am not a biochemist nor a scientist but i have been coming across more and more articles from those who ARE biochemists who are coming to same conclusion that dr campbell has.

the video arvana posted had much of the same information.

but..to be fair..i have also come across articles stating the exact opposite,and campbell does have his critics and dissenters.

you know me though,i like it ALL to be on the table and danny has been kind enough to offer his services to help discern the true from the bullshit.so i look forward to his findings.

anyways,much gratitutde for illuminating your position.
you are one righteous dude and the dude abides.

so i reread my comment on campbell video and realize i was being a shrill harpy.
not intentional but still.....
i agree with you 100% though my commentary may seem otherwise.

i really just posted that video for sniper.
and i was perplexed how one video garnered 24 votes with little dissent while mine is basically ignored,yet both are saying the same thing.

i think THAT is where my defensiveness came from and i really should not have been defensive at all.i am no scientist,nor have i claimed to be one.

campbell has plenty of dissenters and critics and maybe i am being biased and should reflect on that.

just know i am not a vegan,nor a vegetarian and i apologize for my shrill,defensiveness.
it was uncalled for.

but DO watch the related video.very entertaining and some really good information.
stay awesome my man!

I'm not sure he answered the question, or at least that wasn't his focus... rather than explain why privacy matters, he stressed that we 'like' privacy. Don't get me wrong, I like it too, and I don't see that there are any overarching security or economic concerns that consistently outweigh my liking it, but it would be interesting to hear if there are arguments that more directly address why privacy matters.

As far as I could tell, he had three overarching points:

1. Privacy is culturally and psychologically valuable to us, and we suffer if we feel that this private sphere is taken away from us. This is fine, but it doesn't really tell me why privacy 'matters', just that it's an artifact of our current civilization and culture. A similar argument could be made for religion, which I don't think is a necessary but certainly a very common phenomenon.

2. Privacy allows for dissent against tyranny and corruption to grow. This, to me, seems a little fallacious - in a system of asymmetrical privacy, where your government has more privacy than you, this might be true, but in a system of very high transparency on all sides it would be very possible to effectively express and build a dissenting voice. It seems dissent is possible in both very private and very open societies, but not in societies where privacy is only granted to the state.

3. Privacy is needed for creativity and unique expressions of talent. This might be true on an individual level (though it might also be a case of overlapping with #1) but transparency and openness are also facilitators of collective creativity. It might be that we need a private creative space for traditional acts of genius, but who's to say that we can't supersede this with crowd-sourced creativity in the future?

I'm not arguing in favor of any measures to take away privacy, but it would be interesting to see some more rigorous arguments for the need for privacy. Looking at what Snowden did, for example, we see that his actions might contribute to increased privacy in the long term, but in the short term he actually removed privacy (from the government) and made the equation a little more balanced in that sense.

Your video, Whistle Blowers,Dissenters,Progressives - Phil Donahue (3/3), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Jews have the old testament.
Christians have the old testament and new testament.
Muslims have the old testament, new testament, and yet a newer testament.

All 3 share the old testament.
The 'violence promoting' scriptures are found in the old testament - which all 3 have in common.

Reza is right.
If people want peace, the religious of them simply ignore the violent edicts of their religions.
If they want to be violent, the religious of them legitimize it with excuses from their religions.

He's also right about the national hypocrisy. Al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11 was a pet organization of members of the Saudi royal family.
But instead of going after the Saudis (who also today finance ISIS), we go after 2 countries that are unrelated to the attack.

Look at today's irony. Assad in Syria (who we wanted deposed because he was friendlier to Russia than the U.S., and allowed Russian bases on Syrian soil [in the middle east]) is now fighting ISIS, while we ally with the Saudis who are supporting ISIS.

We also didn't mind supporting the Mujahedin (Jihadi fighters) in Afghanistan when they were fighting our enemy. We had no problem throwing Afghanistan into the dark ages when it suited us.

Ultimately, extremist Islam is a foil, meant to rouse western people's emotions. As national policy, we don't _actually_ do anything to stop it, we just use it as an excuse to do whatever else is of national interest.
Who would be the boogey man if extremist Islam was gone? We need a boogey man if we want to keep excusing and paying for a large military. People simply don't have the foresight and patience to maintain a strong military without someone scaring them into support. Particularly now, when we don't have the manufacturing capacity to quickly build a large military.

However, Reza is ignoring Turkey's and the Pacific islander's Muslim problems. Indonesia and the Philippines have extremist Muslim organizations doing attacks home (Philippines also has Christian terrorists). Turkey is a large source of Muslim fighters pouring into Syria.



The various related religions also have historical developmental differences.

Jews were for a long time in such minorities that they did not have the political capability of waging any campaign of violence. They were either too small, or too busy being occupied by European powers (Rome, etc).

Christians did have a long period of majority, starting around 400ad when Rome decided that a good way to control/pacify any dissent within the empire was to make the empire 1 religion and make Rome the head of that religion. They elected Christianity as the state religion, forced everyone in the Roman empire to convert, and you had a continent's worth of Christians.
This included north Africa and Middle East - and is when Jews (by now called Palestinians) were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity (**and few hundred years later forced to convert from Christianity to Islam).

Although, Christians had the benefit of the Inquisition(s) to temper their enthusiasm for Christianity. A large part of the population was killed for consorting with the devil. Once it got so bad that everyone knew someone who had been convicted and killed - and everyone was sure that those killed were innocent, it cast a large doubt on Christianity as whole. People questioned if the devil even exists, or if it's all a sham. The distrust and resentment paved the way for the eventual birth of Deism and Empiricism. A time when the scientific method and physical observation started to take over.

Islam is still a young religion. They still have to experience their religion becoming all powerful, and the inquisitions that inevitably come from absolute power. The one good thing about Islamic extremism is that it makes the people living under those conditions more likely to suffer. Once the suffering becomes so pervasive that everyone is suffering, the people will start to dislike/distrust their religion, and the extremism will resolve itself from the inside out - like it did with Christianity.

The bigger problem would be if things are 'too tolerable', and the religion grows more extreme (no one is inclined to say 'no'). The biggest problem would be if the religious leaders 'solve' the balance issue, and manage to stabilize the oppression at a level that is as extreme as it can be while still being permanently sustainable. Then the religious leaders can live the life of power without the threat of deposition.

-scheherazade

I'm not saying that "climate change" isn't "real," but that the practice of climate science is highly prone to fraud and conflates natural science with social science.

This matters because one could accept climate change on the basis of natural science but still reject it on the basis of social science given the understanding that the policies normally associated with environmentalism are clearly not the proper ways of addressing the effects of climate change.

As such, there is a lack of scrutiny in much of the discourse about and around climate change (to say nothing of the ridicule and mockery and epithets that are slung on "both" sides). There are a few separate questions worth addressing:

1. Is the planet getting warmer?
2. If it's getting warmer, is it anthropogenic (human-caused)? (If not, then it's unclear how humans can 'reduce' it and/or deal with the consequences.)
3. If it's getting warmer, by what magnitude? (This is a scientific question with many implications for policy.)
4. What are the costs of climate change? (Oft asked/answered)
5. What are the benefits of climate change? (Might it, say, make the arctic habitable and a source of land or food? Might it bring down the costs of heating homes/businesses in colder climates?)
6. Do costs outweigh benefits or vice versa? (This question, while important, is based less on scientific fact than on interpersonal value and depends heavily on the results of the scientific questions above. As such, public policy is based on facts and values, and does not translate science directly into policy.)
7. If costs outweigh the benefits, what policies are appropriate? (This, again, would be determined by the matters of both fact and value -- natural science and social science.)
8. What are the costs of the policies designed to reduce the costs of climate change? (Might the policies imposed to address the costs of climate change have associated costs that may outweigh their potential benefits? Might reducing the effects of global warming slow the economic growth so as to impoverish half the planet, or imbuing powers to governments that're likely to be used in ways having little to do with climate change? Such costs might have grave and devastating effects that far outstrip their potential benefits to say nothing of the perceived costs of climate change, itself.)

This is a social scientific question that is no less important than the natural scientific questions listed above. There are many more questions in addition to these, but this is perhaps sufficient to make my points:

* It's possible to accept the natural science of climate change, but reject the policies proposed to combat it.
* It is possible to think that climate change is anthropogenic, but to humanely conclude that nothing should be done about it.

However unpopular it is (on videosift especially) to dissent to the claims that anthropogenic climate is "real," it should be noted that such dissent does not, de facto, "deny" the science, but does, instead, take a far more considered approach that accepts the natural science in light of its many social scientific implications.

God help us all if Russel Brand is the voice of reasonable dissent. I agree with him and even I can't listen to his rambling nonsense.

Hi leebowman- As I just commented, you weren't being censored, nor will you ever be on VideoSift.

We have tons of automated measures in place to combat our never-ending influx of spam, and unfortunately you got caught in our net. (That's also why, as you noticed, your first comment's URL was automatically redacted.)

Please don't feel as if you aren't allowed to have a dissenting voice here. One of VideoSift's most treasured assets is its quality debates between intelligent people.

Welcome to VideoSift!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've been hearing some dissenting voices on the sunscreen argument. The idea being that sun *burns* are what damage the skin, and some amount of sun tan actually prevents that. Also, the health benefits of vitamin D - though there's been some research that sunscreen doesn't block it. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/does-sunscreen-block-vitamin-d-20130617-2odov.html

If I had a Northern European complexion I would use it, my choice is to just avoid the rays.

Actually I have seen the opposite, this 'fringe' as you call it being the norm, but being hidden from view as they understand it looks bad to cheer a hospital being bombed, but they can't help themselves.
As you noted, empathy is never a concern, forgotten in the good times, actively fought against in the bad.
Again, I disagree that this is a 'fringe' element of Israel, from everything I've seen, and those I have spoken to directly (including family members that work for the consulate) the eradication of Palestine and it's people are something they would love to see. The tiny minority dissenting are usually attacked, beaten, arrested, and often disappeared. We have seen this repeatedly in recent times.
Yeah, it's the oppression of Hamas that's the main controlling issue for the Palestinians, not the oppression of the occupying nation to the right....NOT. Many Palestinians are vocal about wanting peace...but not so in Israel, where a dissenting voice is quickly and violently silenced....like here.
http://videosift.com/video/Young-American-Jew-Stands-up-for-Palestine
As a people that suffered due to this tribalism, you might think they would understand it's foibles and avoid them, instead they have jumped head first into it themselves....making themselves akin to a fourth right.

EDIT: as an aside, it seems odd to me that all those claiming Israel has a 'right to defend itself' have already forgotten that Israel fired the first volley, so I hope after being reminded of that fact, they will admit that really Palestine has the 'right to defend itself', while Israel is the aggressor....right?