I think we are seeing things very differently.

How important do you think fossil fuels are to modern society right now and over the last hundred years? Do you believe that they have been net negative or net positive influence on humanity in that time?

Cry me a river.

I couldn't care less if the guy that just stole my car stereo has a hard time in jail.

IMO minor crime should be treated like baseball. You get 3 strikes and then you're out. If you're not stealing for food you're a selfish scumbag and society would be far better off without you.

(and of course violent crime has no place in modern society at all, and I know there's cases which aren't black and white, but many cases are, video evidence and everything, if we at least got rid of the people who without a doubt violently assaulted someone, then we'd be better off...

You only have to watch a few videos on the Active Self Protection channel to see how many people are just straight up scum, and it's little wonder the police in the US are trigger happy - there's piles of videos where people just straight out fire at the police when asked to show their license)

/rant

I'm not horrified by what was shown in the video. Not in the least. I'm just interested in the gender bias and how it affects application of the law.

With regards to your comment about physical size, what if a young (or just petite) male server weighing 130-140lbs, was groped this way by a heavier woman? Would he then be justified in throwing her down? I suspect the media outcome would still be different and result in the male server being charged. This is gender bias because men are supposed to "suck it up".

As I said, if a man grabs a woman or shoves another man, he should expect to get blasted in the face. I was brought up to never hit a woman (or anyone really) and do believe men need to show more restraint in confrontations with aggressive women because men are typically stronger and, probably on average, more physically capable in a fight.

Getting off topic a bit, but the problem I have with the modern feminist movement is that it is becoming much less about equality between the sexes and more about gaining an upper hand on men. Many modern radical feminists seem to want to be treated equally until it doesn't suit them. So I agree with you that modern society has gone a bit crazy trying to say that there are no differences between men and women. But that is getting off topic.

There is plenty of employment law that says that there is an objective correct answer.

It is very frustrating to get into the conversation over and over again, meet the intellectual points with reason, and be dismissed.

Until men -- and they are mostly men -- step up to the plate and acknowledge that their biological responses are a problem that relegate women to pieces of meat for their pleasure, this will never be addressed in a way that lets us move forward.

It is akin to racism. I'm a racist. I have racist responses that are a combination of what I was brought up with (thanks, dad) and are part and parcel of how human's brains evolved.

We evolved to quickly see difference.

Helped us survive, that lightning quick assessment.

But racism is purely BELIEVING that lizard brain reaction is based in something real and should be given precedence over the frontal cortex.

Racism and sexism are related. They put lizard brain over the frontal cortex.

Just because you feel it doesn't mean it should be indulged.

And there is plenty of equal opportunity laws on the books to say that subjective racist responses, while endemic in humanity, shall not be allowed in a modern society.

We are struggling as humans to rise above the muck of biology. Wanna join me?

@Buck, I did upvote it.

I’m just not sure that videos like these do anything other than reinforce people’s beliefs (regardless of what position they hold).

Religion is only a symptom of the fundamental problem with modern society: unwillingness to accept facts that contradict your beliefs.

While those on the right (especially the religious right) tend to suffer more from it, liberals are not immune either (anti-vaxxers, ridiculous fad diets).

The Oatmeal made a fantastic comic about this. I genuinely believe that if we could get more people to read that, it would do more good than one million atheist videos.

Lotsa white tears in here.

I'm guessin maybe she was trying to say that we all have, like, biases, or something? Like, quick conclusions on incomplete and/or superficial information. Useful survival technique - awkward in modern society - decidedly not demonic. Quintessentially human and not unique to white folks either. But if you define "racist" so loosely it does rather make it impotent. So were all racist and we'll never not be? Why am I listening to you then?

I have a few questions if anyone would care to satisfy my curiosity, I've seen/read a lot of stuff and I don't know what the reliable sources are for this. I'll list them so they're easy to answer, and I'm not trying to imply stuff or score any points, I just want to know. Sorry if any of this is tin-foil hat rubbish but I've been unable to sleep recently and ended up watching a lot of old crap, in a weakened mental state.

1 - Were those people with her yesterday, and does she often travel with, a nurse and a doctor?
2 - What's with the coughing and sicking up green globules into the glass of water? Never seen anything like that green stuff before.
3 - Did she need help getting up some stairs a while ago, or were they misleading photos?
4 - Why did no one react to her going completely limp? I can understand the well trained entourage explanation, but they didn't even look around to check for danger, considering their VIP went lifeless.
5 - Why did they take a collapsed elderly woman with pneumonia to an apartment rather than a hospital?
6 - Why say it was heat stroke?
7 - Has she really been pulling out of a lot of campaign events?

To be honest, I don't find her collapsing a worry at all. I've collapsed due to illness and I'm healthy and fit. What i do find strange is the reaction and lying about it. Somehow that makes me question the other things, but there you have it - my questions.

I think Clinton and Trump are equally bad. Clinton represents everything that disgusts me about politics - the 1%, 'the establishment', privilege and modern society, she will continue to sign off murdering innocent people and destroying the ecosystem for profit worldwide. Trump is.. well, offensive, sexist, racist, but i think only because it makes him popular, like a school bully, but he doesn't understand the new platform he has or what effect his words have on how people behave, and all in all that makes him a cowardly, selfish, egotistical weasel who we're about to give the keys to everything. Either way, we are fucked.

Perhaps the 2nd amendment has just been taken out of context, maybe it's the right to "bear arms". So when you hunt bears you get to keep it's arms.


Or maybe it was a spelling mistake, and it's the right to "bare" arms. So everyone has a right to roll up their sleeves and wear singlets.


Either way basing your lifestyle on a out-dated document that is clearly not relevant to modern society, you might as well be praying to Zeus.

I'm glad we didn't make the same mistake the kind countries of Europe did, and instead we have a vetting process to help ensure that only genuine refugees are coming in. I'm not saying the approach is necessarily the best one, but what can you do when so many economic migrants are clogging the system (on purpose) for people in genuine need of help. (I'm a refugee myself btw).

If it was up to me I'd add some additional tests to ensure that these people are fit for a modern society too, you know, to make sure my daughter/wife/mother/sister etc can go outside on their own, unlike some cities in Europe now.

But then again if it was up to me, neither of the 3 major political parties would be in charge since they're all useless. Liberals are just a mouth piece for big business (literally, that's why they were formed). And they all also look like the bad guys from any 80s and 90s kids cartoon. The Labour party is well meaning, but ultimately as lame, pathetic and gut-less as their "leader", they simply don't stand for anything and all of their policies boil down the lowest common denominator. The Greens driven by emotion not facts, and now they don't even seem to care about the environment very much.

There needs to be some kind of progressive party that is capable of driving humanity forward into the future, instead of weighing it down with traditions of the past. The whole system needs a huge reform.

She is the media, and she is presenting a one sided story here. How despicable to be using children to push a political agenda like this. The children at the start of this video have no idea about the reality of the situation in either direction. Their parents are terrible people for using them this way.
She is just as bad as the right wing politicians overplaying the fear, she is under playing it. And ignoring the real issues.

The real issue here is about difference in cultures, specifically a culture that hates women, human rights, and freedom, all justified by an equally hateful religion.

People aren't afraid of terrorists, but they are afraid of the US going through the same thing Europe is going through now.

I was a refugee myself BTW, from a communist country. But here's what I didn't do. I didn't keep living my life with communist values because it's obvious to me that those values were what made my country so bad. And I certainly didn't make everyone tolerant my old values, nor did I try to override other peoples human rights in order to appease my communist values.
I'd ask any other refugee to drop their own negative values as well if they truly want to integrate into a modern society. (Doesn't mean you have to pick up any negative values of modern society of course).

*snort* In our modern society, the bare minimum is ignoring the guy and hoping he doesn't come over and bother us.

It could all be fake or that kid giving him the stuff might be broke ass as well. And even if it is mediocre, it might be everything to the old guy. You know, to be treated like you actually matter?

Why is it that the Videosift crowd is generally competent enough to call bullshit on "no, all lives matter"-rhetoric, but not enough to see through this type of nonsense? It's the exact same fallacy - yes, men do suffer in modern society, and yes, white people are mistreated by cops, but that's not a reasonable argument against feminism or against Black Lives Matter.

There's a decent quote by Anatole France on this kind of simpleminded 'equality in name only': "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Trying to create equality on paper, and be color-blind or gender-blind or money-blind or whatever you humanist fuckheads are arguing for, just cements the actual inequalities in society, all because you don't want to 'focus on differences'.

@newtboy

Oh, absolutely, the video is poorly titled. I'll give you that.

But everything else you wrote is, for lack of a better term, uninformed.

Certainly commercial meat suppliers in first world countries like the U.S. have bowed to the "politically correct" demands of PETA to "humanely" kill animals. Poultry are knocked unconscious (with electric shocks) before having their throats slit while larger animals like cows are killed with a single shot to the head. Concern with how "humanely" the animals are killed is rather comical given the conditions under which most commercial animals are bred and raised, but that's an issue for another thread.

Now, if you think stuff like this video doesn't happen in places like the U.S. I'm gonna guess you don't realize what happens on typical farms where people raise livestock for their dinner table as opposed to commercial sale. People kill animals exactly in this and similar ways--slitting their throats, beheading them with axes, grabbing poultry by the head and breaking their necks, etc. Don't believe me? Check out this thread on how to kill a chicken. What happens in this video happens across first world countries, including the U.S., on a daily basis. Your shock comes from the fact that modern society has insulated you from the killing by hiding it from you.

Now, the people in this video are probably not living in a first world country, and we've already established that even if they were the animal would likely be butchered in a similar way if it is being prepared for personal use as opposed to commercial sale. They're most likely doing it the way it's been done there for hundreds if not thousands of years using the tools available to them to get the job done. Slashing the carotid artery is the fastest and most painless way (compared to other methods) to kill the camel. I can't think of a faster or more painless way other than shooting it in the head (which still risks ricochets and assumes personal gun ownership is legal in the country where this is happening).

Capitalism is a guideline or system of how to organise aspects of society (trade, labour and services for example), nothing more. How you use it defines its effect on us. I could sell you my child explicitly for the purpose of you raping it and it would show how evil capitalism is. Or I sell you my children's book explicitly for the purpose of you entertaining your own children and that would be quite nice.
The problem starts if you think everything needs to be a for profit business as capitalism should be unlimited. Then you live in a country that makes prisons privately owned businesses and thinks it's ok to bankrupt sick people and their families with medical bills.
Capitalism is as evil as the people controling it. Who allows these people to be evil? Who cares? Apparently not the majority.
However, all that is not the problem of this ad. The capitalism works to nobodies disadvantege here. Edeka tries to brand itself as family-friendly and established part of homelife. That is quite normal and acceptable for a grocery store. It is not like as if VW would be putting out ads on how honest they are.
The version of the ad I described as being better is as manipulative as this one with the exception that it doesn't make everyone look like assholes upon closer inspection.
Nobody nailed grandpa's door shut, he's allowed to step into the world and make new friends and other aquaintances. His isolation is understandable but mostly his own fault. I witnessed stuff like that myself, I have grandparents too.
On the other hand you bemoan the smombies of today. Do you see the irony of complaining about the screen-fixed stare of todays youth (and society in general) on an internet forum?
We created a distraction-addicted, short-term attention-spanned and self-affirming society on our own by willingly swallowing all the crap the distraction industry throws at us.
I don't have a twitter account because nothing I can say in 140 characters without established context is worth saying. That gotta mean something coming from me of all people.
I'm not on Facebook because I know what the 'StaSi' was and see no reason to do their work on my own person for Mr. Zuckerberg and his shareholders.
I have no internet connection on my cellphone because I prefer to know stuff instead of just looking it up. I don't write text messages all the time because I prefer spoken words with their complexity that simplifies communication instead of emojis that emulate things my face did since before cellphones stopped being science-fiction.
I choose not to stare at the palm of my hand and what's lying in it every 5 minutes because I can. Most of our modern society chooses differently. They chose poorly, as the real oldtimers would say.
And here we are, yet again, ranting about the evils of enticing screens in our lives, live on the internet. You know, we would not be this absurd joke if we'd sat at a dinnertable right now. With food and drink from Edeka.

Attacking the religious text is a strawman in my opinion.

There's all sorts of outrageous (by modern standards) stuff in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, and other major religious texts. How could there not be? They were written hundreds to thousands of years ago at a time when reading and writing was limited to the wealthy or elite (i.e. priest classes). Much of that stuff is outright ignored or at the very least acknowledged by deemed less important by practitioners of those religions in modern societies.

All literature is open to interpretation and this includes religious texts. The fact that there are tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity with differing opinions about what it means to be Christian and how to behave as one gives testament to this. While there aren't as many named denominations in Islam, if you actually look at how it is practiced locally in say urban Malaysia (i.e. no Bhurka for women) compared with rural Afghanistan (i.e. full body covering required) you can see there's huge diversity there as well.

So if you want to judge the religion, then you actually have to take the time to make an informed opinion by looking at who does what and why they do it. And when you do that, you tend to find that there's this complex inter-relationship between religious teachings, economics, politics, ethnicity, history and so on which make it difficult to assign full blame to any one "thing" such as religion. The female genital mutilation example I used above makes this pretty clear.

Sticking solely with criticising the religious text puts a critic on very unsure footing, as at the end of the day all the critic is really doing is criticizing a specific interpretation of the text (i.e. their own understanding). That's why, as I said, it's something of a strawman argument since you're really arguing against an interpretation you yourself have created.

It is much better, in my opinion, to look at how specific groups are interpreting and enacting the text, and then criticizing their actions (or the effects of their actions) in the event that there is a negative effect. But in doing so I think it quickly becomes apparent that those actions are almost always enacted locally as opposed to globally. In other words, they are the actions of a specific group of people in a specific place at a specific time who have been influenced by all the factors (history, economics, etc.) I mentioned above.

And when you reach that conclusion you realize you're not criticizing Islam anymore, you're criticizing one groups' interpretation and enactment of Islam in specific context.

On the other hand, if you ask which type of criticism gets you more views on TV or more headlines in newspapers...