I love the fact a mild scolding from a little girl makes the Mighty-Righties totally lose their shit.

Seriously, a 12-year-old child was your arch-nemesis. That sculpture of the Brave Girl or whatever it is down on Wall St. must haunt your nightmares like fair voting and diabetes combined.

Congratulations! Your video, Man scolds bear after it tries to steal from bird feeder, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 453 Badge!

Your video, Man scolds bear after it tries to steal from bird feeder, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Hedges on Truthdig:

I finished my book with a deep dislike for megachurch pastors who, like Trump, manipulate despair to achieve power and wealth. I see the Christian right as a serious threat to an open society. But I do not hate those who desperately cling to this emotional life raft, even as they spew racist venom. Their conclusion that minorities, undocumented workers or Muslims are responsible for their impoverishment is part of the retreat into fantasy. The only way we will blunt this racism and hatred and allow them to free themselves from the grip of magical thinking is by providing jobs that offer adequate incomes and economic stability and by restoring their communities and the primacy of the common good. Any other approach will fail. We will not argue or scold them out of their beliefs. These people are emotionally incapable of coping with the world as it is. If we demonize them we demonize ourselves.

"We" is those like me, that have always supported equality( for over 40 years in my case), but never liked calling that "feminism", as that word implies both separation and a bias, both of which EXCLUDE equality. There are many who think that. My mother is one, it's not just men.

You do not have to fight at all, I don't know why you seem to want to. Because someone suggests that it might be something to think about is not the same as saying 'YOU MAY NOT USE THAT TERM'! You may chose to not think about it if that is your choice, you may chose to think differently. No one is telling you how to think, I'm telling you how I think.

No one said "your wrong to use that term". I said there are reasons it's not a good name for a movement that is NOT based on a female centric, female dominant mindset. No scolding. My choice is my choice, my thoughts and reasons are mine, yours are yours, why are you so looking for me to be scolding you or telling you you're wrong? I'm not doing either.

It is only descriptive if the goals are promotion of purely female causes and rights, but not if the goals are equality....but that means they lose a LOT of people that have called themselves 'feminists' in the past, and not just men.

Um....OK....so forget equality for men then? Any time the equation is in the woman's favor, that's fine, huh? No thanks, THAT'S why we need another name. You can keep "feminism", as I think that's exactly what it describes, "equality for WOMEN, period". 'Humanist' as a concept (as I understand it) excludes that mindset of separate and pit against, it does not embrace and reinforce it.
Equality for people. Period.

Why is it that my stating my thoughts, to you, means I'm instructing you how to think, and stating you must "hew" to my definition? I certainly made no such conscious implication. May I, a man, not have an opinion without being labeled an oppressor of women?

No, clearly you don't understand my reason or goal in stating my thoughts and I feel that you have over-reacted based on that total misunderstanding.

Fine. Then I'm an equalitist. I care about equality and fairness for all people. You may separate and then choose sides, that's your right, your option, and your choice to make for yourself.
EDIT: Make that egalitarian...thank you @Babymech for pointing me to the correct term.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Because I have proudly called myself a feminist since at least 1976, if not before.

I started calling myself a Humanist also maybe in 1990? Somewhere around there? I am not giving up the term Feminist though. No matter who tries to co-opt it or suppress my use of it.

Or even "oppress" my use of it, if I might go that far. Why do I have to fight you to use a simple word to describe myself?

The scolding continues, by the way. Telling me that I am wrong to use a term I have proudly used for over 40 years. Because you and some of your friends don't like it and don't want to use it, for your own valid reasons.

Please stop telling Feminists that the word was never "descriptive of their goals" when in fact it is very descriptive.

Equality for women. Period.

I'm not telling you to stop labeling yourself only a Humanist. I was clear that I understood your point when I said that Humanist is an umbrella word that covers Feminist.

Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting.

Maybe the real question you might consider asking yourself is -- why is it so important to you that I hew to your definitions? Is it just an intellectual exercise, the fun of the argument? Well, it isn't fun to me. It feels lecturing and minimizing of my personal experience and knowledge and life lessons I have learned.

I know you don't intend that. However, I am telling you straight out, clearly, that is how it feels to me and I don't like it. I've been on the receiving end for FORTY FUCKING YEARS why it is inappropriate for some reason or other to call myself a feminist. The reasons change, but the goal always seems to be same: To stop me and others from overtly saying that we care about women and their place in society.

It's not going to happen. After 40 years, it just isn't going to happen.

I'm a feminist. I care about women and their place in society.

Please re-read. I'm pretty sure you completely misunderstood.
I'm not "scolding" anyone (well, maybe slightly scolding the She Woman Man Haters Club, but they deserve it). I'm stating that the word "feminist" as a word is not descriptive of a movement that works for "equality", it's descriptive of a movement that puts women first.
Some of those of us that have worked for equality of the sexes for decades are somewhat insulted by that misnomer, and very insulted by those that use the name "feminist" to describe man haters (that means both the man haters themselves and those that call all feminists man haters).
For those reasons, I suggest that those who support equality between the sexes should no longer call themselves "feminist", as that term was never properly descriptive of their goals, and is now terrible having been successfully co-opted by the militant, man hating, minority, female first contingent we wish to separate ourselves from.

To quote Rashida, it is important to become more sensitive before being less sensitive.

I agree that being a Humanist is more inclusive. However, that umbrella word covers the valid word "feminist."

Trying to erase the word "feminist," scolding women and men for labeling themselves feminist, ignoring their particular need for that label as equality is struggled for is anti-Humanist, @newtboy.

Just sayin'.

And I'm the first person to speak up for how hard it is to be a man. Men are HORRIBLE to each other, for starters. In fact, I said it just last night, more than once, during a convo on the patriarchy after watching the 2007 movie made in Turkey called Bliss." There was some serious oppression of women in that movie -- very hard to watch. And it is important that the pressures that men are under are seen as just that -- human struggles and repressed pain that is masked by some really shitty outward behavior.

No need to tear down anyone else who is trying to improve their life and society in general. It is called being a Humanist.

Well, there we differ.

I don't engage anymore with people who are so passionate about their beliefs, they insult others. There is nothing I can say that will change them.

What was posted was just fine, just as it was.

Did you know that there are a disproportionate number of vegetarians in Britian? And there are a lot of them? So they have an interesting population to study.

I read somewhere that vegetarians, on average, have a higher IQ than the general population. Makes sense to me -- they read, they empathize, they question. That all takes intelligence.

It really doesn't matter to me if they "go too far." That is just passion. That is how change happens -- folks on the fringe pulling us sluggards in the middle out of our complacency.

I have more trouble the Sanders contingent than I do with vegans. Same dynamic -- they are passionate about their topic, and they don't differentiate between compromise and selling out, and if they keep this shit up, if Hillary gets the nomination, Trump might actually win.

Now THAT is over the top behavior that has real consequences.

Being passionate on the Sift is fine. If you don't like it, I honestly think it is better not to engage. Keeps your blood pressure down. Since trying to change their minds (on any passionately held topic) is fruitless, you are actually ahead.

You get low blood pressure!

(And I agree that we "should" have a mostly plant based diet. For a multitude of reasons -- health, the environment, limited resources, water usage, the list is pretty long before you even get to the abuse that animals in factory farms suffer. Do I have a plant based diet? No. Do I feel shame for not doing what is right? Yes. Am I going to change? No. "Should" I change? Yes. Do I enjoy the passionate and scolding posts made by friends on Facebook? No. Do I stop following them to "save" myself? No.

Instead of the Art of War, I am trying to practice the Art of Disengagement. Better for my health!)

Kinda *related (just haven't had siftbot yell at me lately) I think I'm going to see Flogging Molly at Red Rocks on my birthday. *promote the hell out of this please, after my scolding of course.

I don't think we can lay the ascendance of Trump at the feet of Idiocy. You see, people who are scared and angry of change have a tendency to 'flock' around a possible leader who promises them a return to the good old days. I mean, look at leaders like Mussolini and Hitler, people were suffering from the punitive effects of reparations from WW 1 and flocked to demagogues who promised better days.

This tendency to flock is littered with examples throughout history. The people not scared of change tend to look at those affected by the phenomenon and scold them for being out of their 'flocking minds'.

tl;dr
Yes, I absolutely wrote two paragraphs to get in a pun.

Had a very unsettling moment while watching this, as i mentally scolded this guy for not wearing a helmet... I suddenly realized in my head i was repeating 'lessons' from my parents... yikes.

LMAO. Wow the double-standard is strong with this one.


So you'll defend this - in your own words - victim, of police harassment..

And even openly question & scold the officer as WORTHLESS..

For trying to bring trumped up Trepassing charges against him..

However, in the Arizona Iced Tea scenario..

A scenario which is nearly almost precisely the same..

You'll take the exact OPPOSITE stance..

And defend the clearly UNCONSTITUTIONALLY wrong officer..

And deride the victim for his objection to an illegal detention, search & seizure and arrest?

Please explain yourself, Lantern

Please explain why you'd treat - basically the same situation - in two vastly different ways.

*grabs popcorn*

The problem is that sponsors will yank support in less time than it takes to change the channel when an episode of 19 and counting comes on, if and only if, it involves an individual or small group.

Getting them to yank support from a sporting organization that has a larger fan base and that is more corrupt than the NFL is almost impossible. In fact, and I wish I could find the article, Budweiser already doubled down on their support for FIFA after the indictments became widespread knowledge.

Realistically, I think that Blatter could make a video saying he knew all about this and completely supported every phase of the corruption without any chance of sponsors pulling from FIFA. The only way FIFA will fall is if the top teams and countries leave the league to form a competing one.

Edit: found the article, it basically has a statement saying they will continue to monitor their partner. the article goes on to compare it to a much stronger worded scolding of the NFL over DV. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-wont-budweiser-scold-fifa-2015-05-29

Upvote for the incredibly clear explanation of the joke in the youtube description:

"Marc goes home at 3:55 am and is completely drunk. When he opens the door, his mother is ready and waiting to scold him and tells him he's drunk. Marc will deny that. The woman then asked to say say what time it is displayed on the clock so that it is aware of the late hour. Too drunk, he will misunderstand the meaning of the sentence and repeat that it is not drunk at the clock.

Indeed the question asked by the mother who is "Can you tell the time?" can be interpreted (most commonly available) with "You can tell what time it is?" but also, as has understood that young drunk man, "You can say it now?" . This is why Marc will repeat that it is not drunk by speaking directly to the clock."

Dead pan at it's best!