Odd, because it did work for me, as I can't even see @speechless's comments due to one particularly nasty, insulting conversation we had one day that ended in my ignoring him/her. Now there's no way to un-do that if I wished to, without having lucky do it for me.
Agreed though, stricter enforcement of the 'rules' would have made my requesting this feature (yes, I requested this...go ahead and blame the Newt) moot. The people that constantly made the site a place I wasn't sure I wanted to visit, IMO, violated the rules repeatedly...but my opinion is only, like, my opinion man, and if the moderators don't think they've crossed the line, this feature was the only way I would be able to continue here...since I was unable to ignore a few members (now I'm not talking about speechless) because their inflammatory hate speech was so often quoted and commented about, so I would click 'see it anyway' out of curiosity, and often ended up replying.
Now that I don't see them at all, I feel much better about being here. It does mean that I no longer contradict their insanity publicly (or at all), so they get to spout their hateful ideas with less opposition, but there came a time when enough was enough and I realized that I was only giving them the attention they were seeking just by replying, and certainly not making a dent in their ignorance or hatred, and it wasn't doing me any good either.
Since they know how far they can skirt the rules while still being as annoying as possible, this was the best option I could think of....and I'm quite grateful to Lucky for implementing it for me (and others).
I think it sucks ass that most of the dissenting (right wing) voices here have become so angry and hateful that they aren't worth listening to anymore, and seem to only post here to get a rise out of others, not to inform or discuss. I wish that was not the case, but since it is, for me it was either stop reading them altogether (requiring this addition to 'ignore'), or just leave like so many others have. I was not ready to abandon the sift and let them 'win', so this seemed the best alternative.

It would be nice if you could see who you are ignoring on your profile page somewhere, and had the ability to choose to un-ignore on a person by person basis by one's self. Who knows, it's possible that some of them might go to the lounge (where ignored users can still be seen), indicate they had changed, and make me interested in reading their comments again. As it stands, I would have to go to @lucky760 for that 'un-ignore'...it would be better, I think, if we could do it ourselves without bothering him, but I don't know how possible or reasonable that really is.

The problem of induction has been a well known issue for hundreds of years. The gist of it is, we cannot rationally justify inductive reasoning. The significance of that is that virtually all of our knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is arrived at by inductive reasoning. Here is a good overview of the problem:

https://faculty.unlv.edu/beisecker/Courses/Phi-101/Induction.htm

So, when you say your worldview is designed to show reality, do you have any rational basis for your claim? Even an insane person will make the same claim that you have, so how do you know that you are not one of those? The problem of induction reveals that underlying any knowledge claim there is a series of unprovable assumptions, and that everything, even rationality itself, is subject to change. If you are just a blip on a computer screen somewhere, the whole thing is kind of moot isn't it?

You see my worldview as rigid because you don't appear to believe in absolute truth. Have you ever pondered that the claim "there is no absolute truth" is actually an absolute truth claim? The whole idea of relative truth eats itself at a certain level, but those who believe in only relative truth don't follow the evidence where leads. Aren't you willing to take these ideas to their logical conclusions, newtboy? You're the stubborn type, but not the intellectually incurious type.

I only know what I know because of what God has revealed to me, otherwise I wouldn't know anything. I would say the same thing as most of you do, that "I don't know" is the most rational position to take. That's the position I took before; I have been convinced of the truth because God, through His love and supreme mercy, revealed Himself to me. I don't deserve it, believe that much. It's not because I am so special, it is because of His grace.

What I absolutely believe newtboy, is that He doesn't love you any less than He does me. He didn't truly reveal Himself to me until I was in my 30s. I don't know what He has shown you, but I know He has shown you something. Perhaps you won't put it together until later in life, and there is a reason for that too, although I couldn't tell you what that is. I just know that He loves you the same and is faithful to show you the same kind of revelation that He has to me. If you are truly open to that, if you would want to know the truth regardless of your personal preferences to the contrary, then you won't fail to find out what I've found out; that there is meaning and purpose to life, because you were created on purpose for a reason:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

I never said "youtube comments are toxic".

If the poster NEVER allows comments (like "Christian mom debunks the science museum"), yes, that's not good and indicates a lack of interest in opposing viewpoints.
If the poster disables comments after repeated rape and death threats, that's only prudent, no matter who the poster is or what they post. That's what was reported in this case, rape and death threats.

Once again, since it's not sinking in, getting serious repeated detailed death and rape threats is not "being called on her shit", and your insistence on calling it that gets you distain and incredibility from my camp. Only a seriously demented douchebag could honestly think they are the same thing, or is it you are claiming that it didn't happen? If the latter, please provide evidence of that claim. She disabled comments and ratings and canceled appearances on the advice of the police/FBI, from what I recall reading back then. Perhaps she was not getting the same threats on her kickstarter page (could it possibly be moderated better?), or maybe she forgot it with the stress of being threatened?

But once again you ignored the point and my request for verification about WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT SEX WORKERS...we never disagreed that she disabled comments, only on why she did it. I'm certain you understand that and are trying the "look, look at the monkey" technique for distraction from the points at hand. That indicates to me that there is none and you just made up what you wanted her to have said. That will be my position until you prove it wrong, do so and I'll change that position.

You seem to think death and rape threats are faux-excuses and not serious. I'll hope you never have to find out differently, but many people have. It's unseemly to imply a single woman should ignore such threats or assume they are not credible, and does not make you look good in my eyes.

It's obvious you have severe hatred of her, and distain for anyone that doesn't, and that you take anything she says or does in the worst light. That makes further discussion moot...and I just don't care. My main point was your aggressive, insulting tone, and it's unlikely to change since you ignored my stated points entirely.

Also... the NSFW tag is missing completely on the video page itself. We at the least need the NSFW, Long and like tags showing up. (I was going to edit the original post but figured it was upvoted so seen and also this sort of deserves it's own mention.) Not sure position, but around Title and before submitter. Be it below or to the side I don't know.

Example, I clicked this from the front page http://videosift.com/video/My-Bow-Breathing and didn't notice in the main listing it was NSFW... moot point as I'm not at work or public, but had somebody just sent the link and not noted it as NSFW... and there's the issue, people getting the link to just one video itself. While the front page notes it, the video page itself is missing that important information.

The only reason this video got 7 votes is because of the title. I'll bet most people didn't even watch it. Meanwhile, true quality videos go ignored. Therefore, videosift is rather moot.

@A10anis
i do not understand why chomsky confuses you so easily.you pretty much have the same criticism on every video you watch of him.

his premise is fairly consistent and self evident:he is critical of power.

while i do not disagree with your assertions on personal responsibility and i suspect most people would agree with you on that point.i do not see chomsky making an argument against personal responsibility.so your point in that regard is moot.but to ignore massive monied and powerfully influential political and corporate institutions and their affects on society is naive' at best and venal at worst.

you appear to be made uncomfortable by the criticizing of the power structure and institutions of the west (i do not know where "here" is for you).which suggests to me that you have confused ideology with reality,made clearer by your suggestions:
1.taking advantage of an education system that more and more translates to debt peonage and a high percentage of not even working in the field utilizing that education.
2.free thought.
ok i have to admit this one made me giggle.
everybody has free thought but the irony here is relevant to the very video on how that thought is manipulated and your comment reveals in ironic delicousness.
3.certain rights.
yes we do have certain rights.rights that have been systematically chipped away at due to abstract wars on:terror,drugs,immigrants etc etc.rights are becoming more a suggestion than actual rights.

your conclusion has the suggested flavor that since chomsky benefited in this society that he should just shut up,sit down and behave like a good little boy,and that those who admire his courage to criticize the most powerful country on the planet are "followers".

since you do watch the videos of chomsky( you do watch them dont you?),yet have the exact same criticism every time,maybe it is time you actually read one of his books?
just an idea...
you may find much of your confusion in regards to chomsky will be clarified.

Now I'm starting to think you just want to argue. If you're smart enough to make those technical assertions, you're smart enough to know that's not what the experiment was about, and that you're just adding data to confuse the lesson.
The experiment is about the effect of gravity on the moving objects under 2 conditions, and how their mass means nothing when determining THEIR accelerations/speeds in a vacuum. Period.
You want to introduce other, completely unobservable (and irrelevant to the lesson) forces and movements to say 'nope'. Technically, you may be correct in a way, but you must completely ignore the purpose and parameters of the experiment and assume inobservably small movements to make your point...a point that does not actually change the experimental findings or the lesson, but does confuse it thoroughly.

EDIT: I would note that, by your standards, exactly where the observer is positioned makes MORE difference than the different masses of the bowling ball and feather, as do the exact positions of the two...if dropped from exactly the same position, they hit at exactly the same time because their gravitational forces are in line.

I would also note that if you change it to say, unimpeded, they would cross any imaginary line in space at the same time (essentially what they mean), again your point becomes moot.

Dude, shut up. You're not going to win this. You're not a psychologist, you have nothing to say you just want to try and find a way to render my posts moot. It's not going to work.

Also is this your first day? Have you read ANY of my other posts?

The truth is, I made a joke you didn't get. That bothers you so you try and turn it into a character defect. Thanks, got it, you don't get jokes because you're not funny.

"Allowing" opinions like Lantern's makes it possible to begin to understand the "wrong" side of the argument.

SB is just a deluded, self-aggrandizing zealot. He has no qualms attacking sifters without provocation, based only on his microscopically narrow, scientifically impossible world view.

...but, I haven't seen evidence of him in months, so I'm hoping the question is moot anyway.

They'll still use a monetary unit issued by the same international bankers I'm sure, so the political distinction is largely moot.

I'm not sure how much credence I can give the wiki page...I note it claims things that are obviously wrong, like "the design does not have a long lifespan when compared to other engine designs due to large numbers of moving parts" while in fact this motor has far fewer moving parts than normal motors. It did make some good points, like the first one that occurred to me about friction, but also made some bad points such as claiming 'mechanical complexity' as a drawback, while in fact it seems far more simple than normal motors.
"extra complicated machined parts" also exist in normal motors, and can be made fairly cheaply and easily in bulk.
Excess use of oil is an issue, but one they should be able to solve with proper machining and materials. Low RPM is fine for many applications, like a generator, so long as it's efficient it's fine and might even be better. Since you get high torque at low RPM with this design, low RPM seems to be ideal.
They claimed it had comparable horsepower to the same displacement normal motors in the prototype...if true, that point is moot.
Actually, there seems to be less moving mass in this motor, consider the mass of the crank shaft and counterbalances, connecting rods and pistons, the camshaft, rods, lifters, rockers, and valves. This motor only had a compact 'crank' and the connecting rods and pistons, and the output shaft. That's less actually moving to my eye.
The 'potential for explosion' was claimed on Wiki to be a design flaw of the case thickness around the 'crank', which could easily be thickened if it doesn't have to fit inside a torpedo....potential removed.
I'm not saying it's perfect, or necessarily even feasible, but it does seem to have more going for it than you give it credit for and is worth following it's progress to me.

No, it does not.
You cited Saddam's 'records' as a source, records which are notoriously exaggerated. You misquoted HRW and editorialized much of it. It sure seemed like a bad cut and paste job, but now you seem to indicate you simply wrote it yourself, badly misstating the facts (typos). Your 'reports' are as verifiable as mine, and more easily discounted since you site Saddam's records as a source, while the one's I reference were video records made by ISIS themselves. HRW may be a better source for both of us, but again your point is moot.

Once again, you are fighting a straw man...no one said Saddam wasn't horrible. I have and continue to say that the reported and recorded actions of ISIS are worse (for the amount of power and men they have) than Saddam was, and their stated goals and methods of achieving them are also worse for the people involved AND us.
It's interesting to me that you had nothing to say about my thoughts on 'removing the bad man' from power, from my viewpoint the actual topic of this conversation.
I think that about sums it up, no?

I blame people for the current situations, are you not a person? I'm also complicit simply by existing.
Why would I need to expose my friends and past colleagues to a random internet denier ...firstly, subjecting them to you would likely end my friendship with many of them, secondly, you said clearly that you had already asked them ALL, so what gives? Were you just lying? (I know the answer to that, but I'm not sure if you'll admit it or not) If so, why should anyone believe anything you say?
I don't debate EVERY single person, only those I think are claiming things I see as incorrect. Debate at least informs each other of the others point of view, if not fostering re-analysis and possible changing of minds.
So, you would rather accept a few weatherman's opinions instead of most climate scientists when it comes to climate. Meteorology is the study of weather, not climate...or the dog, not the man....SQUIRREL! It doesn't mean they know nothing, but it does mean they aren't professionals in the climate and that others are far more specialized in the field and should be deferred to when discussing their field of expertise.
As I said clearly, I think the 'debate' is moot, as the process is too far along to do much about as I see it, and the few 'folks' that might make a difference (but not enough of one) don't listen to random people from the internet.

And you cant say it either. So the point is moot. It's like a child born without a leg saying it doesn't affect his life any differently than if he had another leg. You're basically saying hey legless, you don't know because you never had that leg.

@Chairman_woo, agreed on pretty much everything. I try not to get into the whole "european vs japanese sword" debate, because I think the whole point is moot. Guns > swords

I study the sword for three reasons.
1. meditative practice. Doing a few hundred cuts is a great way to clear the mind.
2. as an aide to empty-handed work. Using a weapon is a great way to amplify flaws in your technique.
3. Swords are awesome.

I'm under no illusions as to how I'd fare against someone who really knew what they were doing, and given a choice, I'd run the hell away