Disagree. That clip is not nearly as graphic and has 10x the production value. There is no "pussy in mouth" because you don't see any of the bits. There aren't even nipples (to my disappointment.)

So would a snuff film be allowable if it had a happy ending? Or if there was some comedy in the process of murdering the hobo? No, it's disqualified by the presence of this objectionable content, not qualified by the presence of something redeeming.
>> ^gwiz665:

...
Does that belong? Pussy in mouth isn't much "better".

There's definitely something morally objectionable about having sex with three different guys in the same day without disclosing that to any of them. There's a rebuttable presumption of monogamy unless otherwise agreed upon.

@rebuilder. Thanks for instructing me how best to argue my points. I'll take it under advisement.

I never made an argument against taxation based on a claim it didn't work. I made an argument saying it's a monolithic punishment for something that isn't always black-and-white or sometimes isn't even correct. If there's any truth to drinking moderately leading to prolonged life, then wouldn't that refute the claims that drinking leads to health problems, as well? We know heavy drinking may lead to cirrhosis and cancer, but not in every case, and not every drinker is a heavy drinker. Hell, some people smoke all their life and never experience a single health problem.

To me, these are excellent points that demonstrate how a one-size-fits-all punishment is morally objectionable. But to you, I suppose, that's being intellectually dishonest. Hey, try something for me. Try adding to the discussion with a perspective instead of trying to trap me like some hall monitor. I bet you'd find it more rewarding.

Hey numbnuts, I didn't see the girls underpants...maybe I wasn't looking as hard as you were.

what if he was zooming in on her armpits rather than her crotch (which was covered by two layers of clothing. maybe he has a wicked underarm fetish...still objectionable?

fact is he did zoom for a few moments on her ass, he also spent alot of the video filming her from different angles that wouldnt be considered "pervy" as well as turning around and filming the skyline behind him.

and what about all the people standing by and watching from his general direction reletive to her? are they pervs because they were having a crotch pointed at them? nope...but if you film it, its naughty time.

>> ^residue:

het numbnuts, I'm pretty sure the cameraman isn't zooming in on her fucking underpants. you can't honestly tell me you don't see a difference between the two
>> ^CyberViperDriver:
its this sickening trend in america now where the line was apparently crossed by him using a camera. ((hint, now the police are jumping on the bandwagon, arresting people filming arrests from their own private property))
"He is filming her! HERPA DERP CHILD PRON!"
gimme a fucking break. so assuming he is shady and was going to take the footage back home and masturbate furiously to it...he could do the same with just his memory of the girl...better just burn him at the stake to be sure he isn't getting away with anything pervy.
oh, the dude on the ground taking pictures? we paid him so its cool that he is snapping pictures, but god help him he happens to drop the shutter when she turns the wrong way....oh wait, we wont do anything even then because we are hypocrites.
The ultimate irony would be the pro photographer taking the shots home and masturbating furiously to them.

I hope that you do eventually get through to a real person, and that this can be rectified. I think that "objectionable violence" might be as hard to define as "porn". For example, while some may see beauty and grace in a Muhammad Ali highlights reel, others may see only brutality.

The Felony Fights video clearly meets Adsense's criteria, but to give 72 hours notice to "clean up" thousands and thousands of pages of user generated content... that's highly unreasonable and should not be left to the discretion of an automaton. Best of luck!

>> ^Arg:
Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

Here's what wikipedia says on the matter:
"The use of riders is prevalent and customary in the Congress of the United States, as there are no legal or other limitations on their use.

When the veto is an all-or-nothing power as it is in the United States Constitution, the executive must either accept the riders or reject the entire bill. The practical consequence of the custom of using riders is to constrain the veto power of the executive.

To counteract riders, forty-three of the fifty U.S. state constitutions allow the use of line item vetos so that the executive can veto single objectionable items within a bill, without affecting the main purpose or effectiveness of the bill. In addition, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was passed to allow the President of the United States to veto single objectionable items within bills passed by Congress, but the law was struck down by the United States Supreme Court as unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York."

It sounds like there is nothing stopping someone from adding whatever rider they want to any legislation. I'd be interested to hear otherwise.

Fair enough. I was just confused, since most people I know on the sift work like this: don't like it - no upvote. It's objectionable - downvote. And for the life of me I didn't see what could be controversial in a series of abstract images.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
I like some techno/metal as much as the next guy i suppose, but that video just gave me a headache. It was difficult to watch the b/w crep explosions over, and over, and over. Eventually i found myself saying "Yea...ok I get it...you can make a BUNCH of different shapes" Also the music/beats did little to swap me away from a downvote.

Dont take it personally chief. I just didnt like the video.

In reply to this comment by srd:
Any reason in particular for the downvote, or were you just feeling a bit atonal at the time?

While I don't mind the downvote per se, I am a bit confused as to the why since I can't see any immediately obvious reason. A quick comment would be appreciated.

Morality should never drive laws. Ever. That is what we call theocracy. There is no reason that people in the south could then force atheists to pray or some such non-sense. I repeat, laws and morality should never meat, ever. You can form laws based chiefly on reason, a language that a person of any morality can speak. People of differing moralities trying to establish a legal framework around their personal beliefs means that it comes at the direct cost of freedom of the other man. One mans God is the other mans devil, one mans life lone dream is the others weakness. In reality, the system has turned into what you have said, and that is the main problem with it.

I, for one, want the continuing evolution of human morality to be an issue for culture to decide, not men with guns. If we can agree that we don't know if we are "necessarily work[ing] towards a "better" morality", and further that we might not be operating in a good morality, then does it make since to make criminals out of people for operating on their own morality? That is what we are doing here. We are making people criminals for what they believe. What they believe is ugly. But you have now made it the responsibility of the state to punish those who's morality becomes objectionable, and that one can come and bite you in the ass in the worst kind of way. Is it horrible to be so close minded and bigoted as to not want to hire/do business with someone because of color? Yes. Should we send him to jail? No. If he beats up a person because they are of color? Duh.

>> ^gwiz665:

Laws are things we make. Morals are things we have. Our laws are based on the morality at the time it was made. The prevalent morality changes over time (hopefully for the better), thus laws change over time (hopefully for the better). This is the nature of morality - relative, ever-changing, evolving.
It does not necessarily work towards a "better" morality, just like evolution doesn't necessarily make "better" animals, only animals better at reproducing themselves. Which factors affect morality, I don't know, but I would guess that it relies much on factors like upbringing, teachings, personal growth and maturity etc etc. Lots and lots of factors.
As we as a species become more and more advanced, different issues come up and our morals on that issue starts developing. For now, most people are against human cloning, for instance. That will likely change over the next period of time, when we can easily clone bodyparts from our own cells, or even make ourselves a twin brother or sister.
The evolution of morality is a good thing, it shows that we're striving to get better, which in my mind, at least, is the ultimate goal of our race. Be all we can be. Hoohaah.

It also happens to run the faulty notion of absolute morality into the ground, which I'm not averse to either.

@direpickle
Did you even read the letter? It's really short, you know.

There is no blame, there is no ownership, there is nothing objectionable about it. Calling on people to disavow violence is hardly "gotcha politics". It's more like common courtesy, or basic fucking decency.

>> ^fjules:
To be honest, it might not be that far from the truth. Small breasts are kind of an indicator of immaturity and underdevelopment. But then again, they should ban chubby cheeks and big eyes as well, since those are childish features.


Yes there is a grain of truth in that, but it's the conclusions they reach that are daft. Some of the same features we find cute in babies we still find cute in women. Big eyes, pouty lips, rosy cheeks, soft even skin. Um. . . nearly everything women attempt to do with makeup, come to think of it. (except for mascara, that's to make them look more raccoon like)

There really is a link between what we find cute and what we find sexy. The mistake is thinking that it's unusual or somehow means you'll become attracted to children.

Hell, even when it's done intentionally I don't think it's objectionable. Because we're all smart enough to tell the difference between women acting childishly and actual children.

Exibit A: http://www.videosift.com/video/Selma-Hayek-as-the-Muse-Serendipity-in-Dogma

I think you might be right SPOCO2, with a couple qualifications (1) the images from various scanner models seem to look different from each other and (2) Photoshop certainly got a few of the examples I found CLOSER to normal, so the potential for objectionable outcome might exist still... but I think you are right that this particularly real example might be BS

Fair enough.

>> ^40_Minus_1:
The idea of a NSFW tag is so that we can avoid things with objectionable material in environments that aren't friendly to it. Putting profanity in the title and description of the video is contrary to that spirit.

The idea of a NSFW tag is so that we can avoid things with objectionable material in environments that aren't friendly to it. Putting profanity in the title and description of the video is contrary to that spirit.

If this is objectification, then I don't even what to know what other games like GTA4 are in your mind. It isn't real, they are pixels. There are no real people like this simulated thing, just as Vice city isn't a real place and you didn't really kill those school children. Game over man, game over.

Simulations can not, by their very nature, be objectified because they are themselves actual objects, not complex figures of which we are denying their autonomy (because they don't have any!), or denying their subjectivity (as they don't have a subjective mind!). While we may comment on the type of person that plays this game, the game itself is not objectification, there are simply no real figures to objectify.

In short Fantasizing != Objectifying. If so, then people who play GTA4 are fucking murdering lunatics and people who play Black and White are blasphemous. You tread a slippy slope because you find the content objectionable to your tastes, but your inability to separate out fantastic from reality smacks of Jack Thompson.

>> ^arvana:
It was actually a woman driving.  The guy's voice was the cameraman in the passenger seat.


I watched the video again with Arvana's quote in mind, and while I wouldn't be willing to bet money on it, the film is clearly being taken by the passenger, and the loud voice (next to the camera) is male. I haven't ruled out the idea of someone hanging over the seats from the back of the car, but it seems less likely.

I have to upvote this because I post so many objectionable things, but my immediate instinct was not to upvote it just because it seems like glamorizing such jerk-wad act. I just wonder how I can reconcile having that impulse and yet posting all those horrific European PSAs and such.