I think you've got the wrong end of the stick at some points, so let me just clear that up first:

"Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them."
-- I referred to the modern nazi who supports them, not you for thinking it is wrong to punch. You are not a nazi supporter because of your stance. A nazi of course supports hitler, etc.

So hopefully this clears up:
"The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs."
-- My point was that they are stating their support for genocide and harming other people. It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. They aren't shy about their template for society, they fly the swastika flag clearly and sieg heil and whatnot.

"Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis."
-- This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on. Otherwise you must accept that violence was the most successful solution, and you are equivocating over semantics with this point. In as far as any ideology (which only really latches itself on generic human mindsets like xenophobia, and is therefore inalienable, a form of nazism will occur by some other name in any social group*) may be "defeated", it was defeated.

I accept that you think it is unethical to punch them. I'm not saying i want chaos in the streets where mobs go around tearing suspected nazis to bits; that's why i'm not asking for a law change and why i won't be opening with violence towards nazis. I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok.

* - just expanding on this. It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies; that's why so many diverse ones formed and still do. And as you originally said defeatable, if it isn't defeatable (because it's inalienable) then you're saying your own point is wrong.

TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me

Undoubtedly, more people will see this than a generic "ice cream is tasty" ad.

Equally undoubtedly, this will have a much lower conversion rate (i.e. less people watching this ad will buy ice cream).

They're going for a (much) smaller share of a (much) larger audience.

Time will tell if it pays off for the business.

I have a Chrome plugin that changes "Millennial" to "Snake Person" and it is awesome. So...

Generic Snake Person Ad

I'm almost never in Sift Talk, but I noticed this too. Used to be that to make the top 15 a video would have to get well over the 10-vote generic "sifted" status, but recently I've seen several occasions when there aren't enough videos with 10+ votes to even fill out the top 15 completely.

I'm not an extremely long-time sifter, I've had an account here for 8 years and lurked for probably a couple before that. But in general, the main reasons that I actually joined the community here when I rarely do anything more than lurk (no facebook / reddit / whatever for me) still apply:

Standard YouTube isn't a community, it is a toxic wasteland. Trolls are the rule, not the exception. By far.

On the Sift, I rarely participate by actually posting videos, but the comments sections on videos here are a massive breath of fresh air compared to other sites (particularly YouTube). That's what drew me here and has kept me here.


That being said, I think we've been losing some of the openness to different opinions that has been a real strength of the sift community. With such a divisive US President, I'm sure some of that is inevitable. But, while we've always been better about that than elsewhere on the internet, I think we're losing some of that advantage.

I think the sift leans left -- not extreme, but noticeably. I used to lean moderately right, although generally more in the middle on social issues. My time on the sift (and also NOT living in the US) has pushed me more to the left, again particularly on social issues, but even on the meat-and-potatoes stuff that I think actually belongs in the realm of government. I'm still to the right of sift average, but closer than I was. Credit for that shift in my viewpoints is definitely in part due to the sane, open-minded, and accommodating debates in comments here.

I recognize that it is hard to be accommodating to some of the sifters that are further to the right than I ever was. A certain basketball coach comes to mind. But even when viewpoints from sources like that veer into territory that we find intolerable, I think we here at the sift used to be better about rationally but firmly voicing disagreement without sort of ... picking a fight. If that makes sense.

Just speaking for myself, I think I've probably been upvoting videos less because a higher percentage of what is being sifted is political, and I get fatigued with the volume of that. That's very much tied in to the current situation and media environment, so there isn't necessarily anything to be done about it, but I'd wager that is partially responsible for the lower traffic beyond just myself.

KKK, alt-right, nazi party, white nationalists, and generic right wing racists, all under the banner 'Unite the right' (meaning right wing, not the correct). That's not one radical group it's a conglomeration of many, all of which are firmly on your 'team', and the counter protesters were not so organized and were mostly non-affiliated locals protesting a hate march/rally in their town.

The right wingers came armed, in riot gear, with shields, clubs, and mace. The anti protesters had cardboard and sticks they picked up on site when confronted, and mace. The right marched, without permits, all weekend. (the one event they had a permit for was canceled due to repeated violence in each of those unsanctioned marches) The right wingers were 90%+ non residents that came to start a fight, the anti-protesters were, from what I've seen, nearly 100% locals.
The right wingers committed actual murder and uncountable attempted murders and assaults. I didn't hear of or see a single right winger being killed or even hospitalized.

With the right as one of those extremist groups, I expect violence, no matter the circumstances and I'm rarely disappointed.

But yeah...like your president, feel free to continue deflect blame from your team and keep trying to pretend it's all the "other's" fault and they are responsible for your team's hate crimes and racism. That's working so well for him...and you....winning.

*Facepalm*

Way to stand with the Nazis, Bob. Nice job.

PS: It's ANTIFA, not ANFTA. It's short for ANTIFACIST. Know your enemy.

The video pretty drastically oversold the benefits of Political Correctness, in my opinion. I do, however, completely agree that generic "politeness" is a far superior standard to hold yourself to or goal to aspire to.

PC vs politeness seems very highly analogous to perceiving things as either intrinsically "offensive" or being personally "offended". Humor is frequently a fantastic way of exploring those kinds differences, and SMBC comics did an excellent strip on offensive vs offended:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-02-23

The conclusion there is that "I'm offended" starts arguments (ie., it can create rational and beneficial dialog) while "offensive" ends them (ie., it stifles progress). I feel that it is equally accurate to say that politeness can help resolve problems while PCness really doesn't; it is possible to politely disagree, but in the realm of PC disagreement in and of itself is often deemed offensive and seen as something to be discouraged.

I think part of being an adult is learning that people will often disagree, and that is actually a good thing.

Change the title and it could be any other Hollywood cookie cutter movie released in the last 10 years.

Perhaps the trailer is misleadingly generic, and I really hope so, but after Robocop, Total Recall, and Aliens, the track record for rebooting 80s cult classics isn't good.

Also what's with the 5 second micro trailer before the real trailer? Are peoples attention spans so poor these days that we have to tease the advert even before it plays?

The first trailer for Ep. 7 did such a better job of grabbing my interest than this one did. The title is intriguing though, as is Luke's last line. Honestly, I had kind of hoped for it to go in this direction back in Ep. 7--that the Knights of Ren were a group of Force users that had determined the biggest cause of strife in the galaxy was the constant battling between Jedi and Sith and therefore sought to eradicate both groups in order to restore the balance. Would have made Kylo Ren a waaaaaaay more interesting villain. Instead, though, they made about as generic of a Star Wars film as they could have by just copy-pasting plot points from previous films. So I'm pretty skeptical about Ep. 8 being any better.

Technically, in an extremely loose sense, MRE's are supposed to be not for commercial sale. I guess they just wanted to use the more generic term RTE to avoid any possible controversy.

Upvoting for the impressive special effects used in the film.

But given that it appears to be have been an animation with live actors pasted in, and cartoonish physics presented as if they were real (e.g. that column stuff) I'm not sorry for passing it up in theatres.

Plus the forgettable, generically "epic" music.

@C-note

i am trying to unpack your comment to formulate a response,and then i realized that the reason i was struggling is because your comment makes no sense.

it just a generic,and lazy mish-mash of of inflammatory jargon slapped together to appear well-thought out and salient.

but in reality,it is gibberish,in my opinion.

your comment is a stream declarative statements based on nothing presented in this video.

1.o'neill is racist....to which there is no evidence.

2.o'neill is a misogynist....to which there is no evidence.

3.o'neill is a troll....while this may be a true statement,i see no evidence that what he is postulating is for the single and simple goal to get a rise out of the audience.

4.o'neill is using false equivalencies to justify rhetoric......i suspect you do not understand what "false equivalency" and "rhetoric" actually mean.especially in the context of this particular video.

5.o'neill is debating the right of hate speech in a civil setting.

no he is not debating someone "right" to hate speech,and here is the point where i suspect that you simply did not watch the video.you did not listen to mr o'neill's argument.you did not consider his points and the inherent problems when we begin to restrict language (because you didn't watch the video).

now you are certainly within your rights to disagree with mr o'neill,but you need to at least listen to his argument in order to formulate a cohesive and viable response.

i suspect you read the title,had an emotional,knee jerk reaction and responded in a very generic and lazy fashion.in fact,your comment actually makes mr o'neills argument.

instead of listening to his argument,you responded in the very manner that mr o'neill addresses,and criticizes.

you accused him of:racism,misogynism,troll and using false equivalencies to justify a point he never made!

and when you react by name-calling an insults you diminish the conversation,and shut down all interactions.

now i do not know you,so please take my comment in the humanity it is written.
if you disagree with mr o'neills argument,than can you please express your points and clarify why you feel his argument is flawed or outright wrong?

i am sincerely interested.

Of all of the major stars and performers we lost I think the one that stings the most for me is Anton Yelchin. He was so young yet and such a good actor and many of the movies he did were fantastic. Not some generic hollywood 'leading man' with a gruff voice and rugged looks but an intellectual who had incredible potential and an amazing future that will now never happen.

Not to mention, Trump was far more upset at the cast of Hamilton over their statements of asking Pence to keep in mind the diversity of America, than he was over literal Nazi's, around the corner from the White House saying "Hail Trump! Hail Our People! Hail Victory!" That get's a generic "continued to denounce racism of any kind", but a in response to very real fears of minorities, LFBTs and others, rather than say "It's okay, I understand your fears and I will be a President for all Americans" he instead attacks them for their fears... plus all the conflict of interests which were around long before he won, which constantly amazed me was never brought up when he was complaining about her supposed conflicts of interests. It's like the media wanted him to win...

I'm sure the graphic novel is great, but this trailer just looks quite generic, which tends to happen when they make movie adaptations

Perhaps the most uninteresting and generic questions ever asked a talented comedian.