Ahhh, but there's the dilemma. Does that not instruct your children to lie to their friends (if not directly, by omission)?
That's part of why I think lies are so insidious, they put people in the position of either calling out the lies/liars or being complicit in the lie. I was quite glad my parents didn't tell me to keep the lie a 'secret' when I told them at 5 years old that I knew Santa, et al., was a lie. It would have been confusing to me. Fortunately I don't recall it ever coming up with my friends.

No, he raises a point that always should be taken into account. Not that the point is always valid mind you, nor am I saying it is valid here. But to jump on the "police apologist" bandwagon like the billion others for someone simply making that statement shows your bias.

If a description of the video is in the video description then it must be proven to be true, as a description of the content that is patently false (by omission or otherwise) is unacceptable on the Sift. Can't tag this with "cancer" can we? I mean T might have cancer, but nothing indicates such by the video.

If nothing, a link suffices that proves such, whether through eyewitnesses or such. Trust me, I tried to be funny once with the description...description denied...tried to be funny with tag...tag denied...

You have not upset me, the issue is not of a personal nature.

Your explanation seems earnest, however, your avatar on the cited site is a picture matching that of the individual in a great number of your submissions at the Sift and in those submitted @ YT in the acct from which most of your submissions originate.

Your omission of this fact pattern in your explanation is interesting to say the least.

As to your request for help in the removal of your account, no thank you. It is not my call as to the disposition of your account. Any explanations and/or other issues should most properly be addressed with the admins of the site.

Good luck in any case.

There is a reply in the comments section of this article from the company referring to them making a new black deluxe doll.
http://thenerdsofcolor.org/2014/07/04/playing-around-by-oppression-and-omission/

Hi Shiny,
I'm obviously not a biblical scholar, but didn't God lie to Abraham when he said it was a requirement that he sacrifice his son?
I'm fairly certain that's not the only reference to God lying to or misleading (same thing) people, lies of omission are still lies.

I don't speak Arabic, however I did do some research on the accuracy of the 2 main media watchdogs researching this material (PMW which published the video above, and MEMRI).

So far, PMW has no blemishes on their record for translation, within a catalogue of 700+ videos on their channel. MEMRI has about 5 contested translations so far (wikipedia), but when you consider they have a catalogue of 1400+ videos and the extent of the errors/omissions compared to other material which is uncontested, not much changes in terms of exposing Hamas aims. Being the governing body of Gaza, something needs to change in that regard.

I agree with your sentiment Yogi but the idea that the US and Israel are alone is just wrong.

The EU and the Arab states have been entirely complicit by omission. The US give the EU cover at the UN, and they are entirely happy to sit there and abstain again and again and again. Even the Palestinians don't trust the Arab nations surrounding them as they've been burned by that far to many times.

Its far to simplistic to act like this is a US/Israel issue, if you want to make an argument they are the 'most' complicit, you'd almost certainly be right. But NO one is holding Israel accountable and letting the cowards in Europe off the hook isn't right either.

The neanderthals decry their complete omission.
The scythians were peeved to only be in crowd shots.
Still no one appreciates the pale Visigoths, who appear a bit washed out on the big screen.
Most of china is assured that jk rowling thinks mongolian means retarded.

Yes, and the people who didn't think Bush would step down peacefully were insane as well. I can't imagine that having been a very mainstream idea to have when Bush was the president, so I can't see why it is suddenly "horribly unfair" for people to react when Card lets his insanity shine through.

And even in the quote you posted, Card described his prediction as being "plausible." To ignore that fact is also to lie, albeit by omission.

and now the articles in the news focus on THC content, yet again.

There is a PHd chemistry professor at my school, young guy, who didnt even know cannabidiol was from cannabis. CBD. You know, the anti cancer neuroprotectant miracle drug?

Yea. Current research and the US PATENT on the substance say we have been misled. Where is gupta on this EASY to find information?

FUck.

Please spread the word. The sin of omission is the greatest of all.

The wording "is funded by the US gov" is misleading though to in that it implies the majority of funding for Egypt's military is coming from the US. That's simply not true. The US donates upwards of 1 billion to the Egypt as a whole, the percentage that goes direct to military isn't disclosed that I can see, but it's safe to say with the military running/owning the entire country it is primarily going to the military. The flipside is that so is the majority of Egypt's domestic $230 billion GDP. The US contribution no doubt influences Egypt's military decision making, but not so as to dominate them. More over, purely diplomatic pressure from the US will hold more sway over any party in Egypt than that kind of money.

All that said, I don't see the omission as so terribly glaring. Pressure from American foreign policy, and foreign policy of ALL world governments, plays a role on Egyptian domestic matters, but it's ranking for overall influence is beneath the topics hit in the talk. The talk seems well prioritized, and US financial aid ranks even lower than policy pressure so I don't begrudge, or even find surprise, at it's omission.

If you overstate the influence of America it can quickly reach a racist point where the underlying logic is that the poor egyptians and arabs are so weak and ineffectual that they can't be expected to stand against a mere whim of white westerners.

I agree with you @RedSky It has gone beyond the point of no return. I think Glen is effective in offering a correct diagnosis and a prevention for future incidents rather than a cure for this one.

@bcglorf You kind of lost it on the 2nd post. There's a lot of misinformation used there. Your first post is relevant insofar as Glenn is lying by omission. However, don't confuse omission for tacit endorsement. You are right that these are things that some people do and all people should know but sadly they don't. View this merely as a stepping stone towards greater acceptance of the facts; facts that a hell of a lot of Americans refuse to admit. So much so that it does not even enter the debate before "Why do you hate America" is thrown.

Well, I'm about to get down voted into oblivion, but I have to state this as bluntly as possible.

This is the most perverted kind of propaganda that can be trotted out by someone, and it sickens me to see it. Glen is absolutely correct in every fact he points out, and is in that respect, doing nothing but telling the truth and educating his audience with things they likely didn't know before, and should have. It would seem that should be an unqualified good thing then, but it's not.

What makes this offensive propagandizing to me is the absolutely deliberate omission of equally true, relevant and significant facts that Glen can't help but be aware of. His sole purpose for the omission is that it suddenly shifts things from black and white into the gray that audiences don't like as much.

I'll start from the most important point, and the very premise of the talk, why do they hate us? There is a bigger question though that is even more illuminating, and it is why to they(jihadist terrorists) hate and kill their fellow Islamic countrymen and neighbours? The fact here is that jihadi terrorists before 9/11 and even more so since, have killed tens and hundreds of times as many middle eastern muslims than they have white western infidels. Glen points out plenty of reasons people can have to be upset with America over it's past actions, which is legit in itself, but NONE of those reasons explain why these jihadists target there own fellow middle eastern muslims for the exact same violence and retribution America faced on 9/11. The fact this makes plain is that the jihadi terrorists will hate not only us, but everyone who is not willing to join them unconditionally. They are not the misunderstood, historically slighted and unjustly maligned people Glen's talk might lead people to think of them as. They(jihadi terrorists) do not deserve our sympathy or apologies, their countrymen and neighbours that are their biggest victims do.

Glen also goes on to list the deaths from sanctions on Iraq as an American crime. Apparently Saddam's horrific(then American approved) war on Iran, his genocide of the Kurds, his extensive use of chemical weapons in both, his complete seizure of Kuwait and his genocide of Iraqi Shiites are not relevant to the discussion of placing sanctions on his country. In Glen's discussion, despite this laundry list of crimes against humanity, Saddam is entirely innocent and not in anyway to blame for the children starving in his country while he continued to build himself new palaces and kept his personal guard and secret police forces well equipped and well fed. How is one to take this seriously?

Finally, Glen omits a terrifically important American crime in East Timor that Bin Laden listed. No, sadly it's not our tacit support for the pro Islamic genocide of the people there in the past, but it was America's support for an end to that genocidal repression and support for a free and independent East Timor. This was listed near the very top of American crimes. When Zarqawi blew up the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, he was very clear that it wasn't for Iraqi children dead at the hands of American sanctions. It was because Sérgio Vieira de Mello(killed in the blast) helped over see the transition to a free East Timor.

I'm afraid I am beyond disappointed by talks like this, I find them offensive and contemptible.

Agreed. On Friedman and the rest.

The report was one sided but that does not mean the users of these services are not blameworthy simply by omission.

Bad journalism, surely. But hardly mis-leading. Had they tried harder they could have targeted the users also.

"It is impossible for me to harm or by omission of action, allow to be harmed, the sandwich-making hand."