Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.

I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).

I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.
>> ^gorillaman:

There wouldn't be any reason to visit videosift without the comments.
The reason you see so much dumbfuckery online is people are able to be more open about who they are, and most people, at their core, are dumb fucks. So deal with it; it's better than living your life in a straightjacket of manners and convention.
I despise this movement to 'accountabilitise' the web. It comes from those who enjoy their social power too much and want to tighten their grip over the few remaining sanctuaries of free expression. I'm not talking about big evil governments; I'm talking about the control of people who are able to punish your dissent in ways like not inviting you to a wedding or blocking a promotion. If we're able to have open, honest interactions without fear then their power dissipates.
RL conversations should be more like web conversations; honesty is valuable and bullshit taboos and rituals are not.
If this puts me in the vocal minority, then I am glad.

There wouldn't be any reason to visit videosift without the comments.

The reason you see so much dumbfuckery online is people are able to be more open about who they are, and most people, at their core, are dumb fucks. So deal with it; it's better than living your life in a straightjacket of manners and convention.

I despise this movement to 'accountabilitise' the web. It comes from those who enjoy their social power too much and want to tighten their grip over the few remaining sanctuaries of free expression. I'm not talking about big evil governments; I'm talking about the control of people who are able to punish your dissent in ways like not inviting you to a wedding or blocking a promotion. If we're able to have open, honest interactions without fear then their power dissipates.

RL conversations should be more like web conversations; honesty is valuable and bullshit taboos and rituals are not.

If this puts me in the vocal minority, then I am glad.

I copied my response from another discussion, some reasons to own firearms.

Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

2 million legal Canadian gun owners DID NOT kill anyone today, or yesterday or the day before...we have about 7 million guns...

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.

from ChaosEngine

You're right. Clearly the solution is to legalise rape, kidnapping, theft, assault and murder since people are doing it anyway.

Just noticed your postes wern't private, thought I'd post my reply.

LOL I concede I am an ape!

This is long but addresses many of your questions I think. Also your assumption on my thinking was correct...can't remember what it was but I agree.

now on to the LONG post.

A) Willpower while it has limitations, it is not Limited to a finite value. Just ask any smoker who has quit. Or, a recovering alcoholic.

B) Repeat criminals do not appear to have willpower issues, they make conscious decisions to defy the law, and ether justify it to themselves or simply have contempt for the law. Some may feel the law is wrong or simply does not apply to them.

C) If all it took for a human being to lose their humanity, self respect, morality and honor was to be at the losing end of life why have we not seen a violent uprising of the homeless and downtrodden. The addicts who HAVE lost everything and wander the streets trying to survive would therefore be the most justified to go on a rampage would they not?

D) As for American laws relating to firearms, I am a Canadian and therefore will not argue those laws, as I have little knowledge in that area.
As for Canada, the process of licensing requires a full background check, questioning of witnesses towards your character and ultimately is up to the discression of the license issuer, as I mentioned before.

Are there flaws? Yes. But that is a result of the system. Ideally the system would prevent or remove firearms from any individual before violence occurs. However in order for that system to function flawlessly one must live in a system similar to Communist Russia during Stalins reign. Where every action or spoken word is monitored and reported to the government, by agents, or even by family.

Canadian restrictions to licensing are as stringent as the LAW curently allows them to be without infringing ( too much) on an individual's rights.

E) A piece of plastic does not guarantee the holder to be law abiding. However, the process involved to acquire said item does involve scrutiny. And the desire to legally go through that process as opposed to acquiring firearms illegally and with much less effort does say something towards the individuals intentions.

F) Firearms training and safety cources do indeed instill responsibility, confidence in the use, and the safe possession of firearms. Personally I believe everyone eligible should be trained in the safe responsible use of firearms. Whether they choose to own or not. ( we have sex Ed in school, why not gun Ed )

G) As for F*** heads, they will always be F**** heads. One purpose of licensing is to prevent them from acquiring firearms legaly. Thankfully most of humanity does not fit into this category. ( however they do seem to be breeding at an alarming rate)

H) As for the Katana, not only was it a weapon, it was a symbol of honor for samurai and was passed down through generations with a reverence bordering on a relic. Spend time and look up the 7 virtues of the Bushido code.

Regarding Nukes, while their application is abhorrent to any rational human, think about how many were actually used for their intended purpose. TWO!, out of how many thousands. And both were released by human hands. Possession does not equate to application.

I) Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

So if you read all that I thank you! I'm prepared to say we agree to dissagree and leave it at that but I'm open to more dialog if you wish.

I wish you lived in my area so I could take you to the range to see first hand what it's all about.

Big Ape signing off

Apparently, it's pretty taboo in Canada as well
"You Can't Say C**T In Canada" - (Kevin "Bloody" Wilson).......NSFW


>> ^spoco2:

>> ^berticus:
in NZ (and AU?), "cunt" is nowhere near as taboo as in US.

I dunno, cunt is still regarded as the ultimate swear word here in Aus. It's not to say we don't use it (especially in a shipyard I worked at for a while, man the maintenance workers there had the filthiest mouths I've heard on anyone!)... but it's harsh enough to cause people to be shocked.

>> ^berticus:

in NZ (and AU?), "cunt" is nowhere near as taboo as in US.


I dunno, cunt is still regarded as the ultimate swear word here in Aus. It's not to say we don't use it (especially in a shipyard I worked at for a while, man the maintenance workers there had the filthiest mouths I've heard on anyone!)... but it's harsh enough to cause people to be shocked.

in NZ (and AU?), "cunt" is nowhere near as taboo as in US.

>> ^jimnms:

I never understood why a man would want to have anal sex with a woman. We (men) sometimes use the phrase "tap that ass" or "get a piece of that ass" when we're with other guys and see a hot chick, but (at least I don't) don't mean it literally.


Well, that's good for you I guess, but for a lot of us it's got a certain taboo quality to it which makes it very hot. For me it's about the woman being so turned on she wants to do it, to totally give in to something like that. That's what's hot about it to me.

As for the actual feeling of it. For me, not really a great deal different to vaginal sex, so that's not the attraction. There are guys who say that it's awesome because of how tight it is in comparison, but eh, no big difference in that regards to me.

I'd never want to force a woman into it at all, because that would entirely remove the turn on. The turn on is that they are so aroused, they want to do something 'dirty', that it's a different feeling. So if they're only doing it because you are badgering them into it, the enjoyment is gone.

This only serves to aggravate me. Another taxpayer panel in which we enjoy the benefit of plausible deniability (or whatever there greased 300,00$K lawyers claim works for the current system of worked in loopholes). More so, because I know not a single one of these sons of bitches will do time or ever care--really care. They should be in jail for life. They should be in a federal prison, full security, no white collar bullshit.

They should live on a meager sum the rest of the entirety of their days with all their buildings, lands, businesses, capital, funds, CDs, IRAs, everything except their social security and even that should be looked at (as they should be allowed a low middle income and that is IT); they can gain no earmarks, no passes from their buddies or gifts (although he can live with him as long as his money is not being paid out), they cannot benefit from a will or other form of transfer ship at an appointed time or setting, and then ANYTHING I haven't covered. No politics, no books, no television, no movies, you're in the "white collar" death knell that is their true jail cell. He CAN enlist in the army, they may have a modest job, but the dream of riches are OVER. They chose the ultimate path of pressure that can be exerted on a white collar criminal.

If only we thought that crime like that could be as dangerous as a murderer (and trust me--I'm sure many of you do know already--but, if you don't white collar crimes can end up killing thousands of people, but their hands are virtually clean). Perhaps it is part of the taboo we have with mental disease, we'd rather it remain in the back-room or rather in the back of your mouth. Strangely many of these white collar criminals most likely all suffer from having almost NO empathy for others; they literally could care less what it is like to be me or you. This is a mental issue, but we never talk of such things--it's rude! But, violence has its own mental disease "shards" as well that cause it to start either young or later in life...

But, we refuse to deal with the main topic, so how about punishment(s) atleast? White collar crime is seen as something you do at your beach house in Florida on the weekend. Your lawyer tells you about it on your flight into Boston on Monday, you have three death threats sent to your e-mail, you mildly humming, "Hip To Be Square", send them to your spam folder and block the senders after you send them a death threat/repossession letter back through a company proxy, which then you use another proxy to feed the final bytes through. Your lawyer tells you you'll have to show up to an injunction and say this exact prepared statement, which of course, nicely enough they allow you to read from when they take your testimony. This is our guy. Right now he's eating a stake with a glass of Chardonnay from Italy in the early 90's--meanwhile, "Easy Lover", is booming in the background while his mistress takes a swim in his Penthouse's swimming pool. He doesn't have to get up early, so it'll be a long night--after all nobody is coming for him.

Attack them hard and they might take notice.



What a new punishment that would be for white collar criminals--a death sentence, for them.



Just institute what I said above and it may change things. Attack the problem psychologically, as jail-time is either meaningless or to them it's "Club Fed". But, this of course requires good lawmakers, which requires competent voters, which requires a great education system...

No calls, no businesses, no helping: they are burnt.

The case of Romania regarding religion isn't as grey as presented. The numbers are close to what I suspected, but in fact nobody really cares about religion anymore, most of us get baptized and carry on with our lives and never set foot in a church again.
It became more of a tradition than real faith, and weirdly enough many consider this subject taboo.

Yes, I guess my point is, while i agree with most of what someone named jesus christ supposedly said, calling me a "Christian" wouldn't be terribly accurate, and would have a tendency to associate me with something more than just ideas.

and Karl Marx wasn't the first, present, or last person to think rationally.

perhaps Marx should sue for copyright infringement. ?



>> ^NetRunner:

The main premise of the movie was the alienation inherent in capitalist societies.
The quote isn't "we are not our labels", it's:

You are not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

That's Marxism in a nutshell.
I'm always confused by the people who worry about "labels." They seem to think that if any label applies to them accurately, it's something bad. Well, being smart, kind, human, attractive, etc. are all labels too. For that matter, every aspect of who you are that could be conveyed in spoken or written language is by definition a label.
But fair enough, I'm mostly just trying to be provocative. People demonize "Marxism" in America so much it's silly. Nobody even knows what it is, because it's a taboo topic. Technically you aren't a "Marxist" unless you buy into the Marxian alternatives to capitalism (I don't), but it leaves you with some understanding that Karl Marx wasn't the anti-Christ, either.
After all, the philosophy of Tyler Durden is almost entirely based on Marxist critiques of capitalist society, and a lotta people dig Tyler Durden.
>> ^criticalthud:
So if we agree with a main premise of the movie that "we are not our labels" then we are necessarily labeled marxists?

The main premise of the movie was the alienation inherent in capitalist societies.

The quote isn't "we are not our labels", it's:

You are not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

That's Marxism in a nutshell.

I'm always confused by the people who worry about "labels." They seem to think that if any label applies to them accurately, it's something bad. Well, being smart, kind, human, attractive, etc. are all labels too. For that matter, every aspect of who you are that could be conveyed in spoken or written language is by definition a label.

But fair enough, I'm mostly just trying to be provocative. People demonize "Marxism" in America so much it's silly. Nobody even knows what it is, because it's a taboo topic. Technically you aren't a "Marxist" unless you buy into the Marxian alternatives to capitalism (I don't), but it leaves you with some understanding that Karl Marx wasn't the anti-Christ, either.

After all, the philosophy of Tyler Durden is almost entirely based on Marxist critiques of capitalist society, and a lotta people dig Tyler Durden.

>> ^criticalthud:

So if we agree with a main premise of the movie that "we are not our labels" then we are necessarily labeled marxists?

I like this chick! Sex is way too taboo in this day in age. Go somewhere like Japan or most of Europe and you'll hear lots of women saying or agreeing with arguments a lot like this one. Well said and smartly done. I commend your maturity.

Well then your idiot grandson will never be president.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Would you invest in a weapons manufacturer? I wouldn't. Sure it's legal, but doesn't mean it's ok.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I meant within the law. Some practices should clearly be outlawed if we're going to have a civil society, and I think the government has some leeway to set policy there. However, if you are following the law, why should you be restricted as to where you are going to invest?
>> ^EMPIRE:
Because some investment are fraudulent, and some investments were created to cause harm on purpose to enrich others. How about that? That seems like a VERY GOOD reason not to let people invest in anything they want.
>> ^shinyblurry:
He pays the same tax rate, but there are fewer restrictions as to what he can do with the money. To which I say, so what? The taboo of off-shore accounts came from the fact that people were hiding money there, not that they weren't allowed to invest money there. Why can't people invest their money where they want to, where it is smartest to invest? Why do you think so many celebrities and business owners incorporate in Nevada? What right do you think the government has to tell people where they can or can't invest their money?
>> ^EMPIRE:
shinyblurry...
the people who created the legality of sending money into off-shore accounts are also some of the people who profit from the law being created. So, just because something is legal, it doesn't mean you should do it.
"he pays the same tax rate on that money as he does in the states." and "Yes, it gives certain tax advantages"
Well... what is it then? is it the same thing as having the money invested in the US or in an american bank or are there advantages? It can't be the two at the same time.

Would you invest in a weapons manufacturer? I wouldn't. Sure it's legal, but doesn't mean it's ok.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I meant within the law. Some practices should clearly be outlawed if we're going to have a civil society, and I think the government has some leeway to set policy there. However, if you are following the law, why should you be restricted as to where you are going to invest?
>> ^EMPIRE:
Because some investment are fraudulent, and some investments were created to cause harm on purpose to enrich others. How about that? That seems like a VERY GOOD reason not to let people invest in anything they want.
>> ^shinyblurry:
He pays the same tax rate, but there are fewer restrictions as to what he can do with the money. To which I say, so what? The taboo of off-shore accounts came from the fact that people were hiding money there, not that they weren't allowed to invest money there. Why can't people invest their money where they want to, where it is smartest to invest? Why do you think so many celebrities and business owners incorporate in Nevada? What right do you think the government has to tell people where they can or can't invest their money?
>> ^EMPIRE:
shinyblurry...
the people who created the legality of sending money into off-shore accounts are also some of the people who profit from the law being created. So, just because something is legal, it doesn't mean you should do it.
"he pays the same tax rate on that money as he does in the states." and "Yes, it gives certain tax advantages"
Well... what is it then? is it the same thing as having the money invested in the US or in an american bank or are there advantages? It can't be the two at the same time.