Being a Canadian colours my view, but it seems there is at least some parallels between race relations up here and in the US. The difference is up here is it's aboriginal/white as opposed to black/white.

I don't know how close the parallels are, but in Canada it is statistically accurate to observe the following:
-Aboriginal people are disproportionately the victims of violent crime
-Aboriginal people are disproportionately committing violent crime
-Aboriginal people are over-represented in the prison system
-Living conditions on Aboriginal reserves even compared to neighbouring municipalities are, on average, grossly worse

These are basic facts that are, statistically speaking, irrefutable.

There facts clearly indicate there is a problem in society. Unless you believe that race determines criminality, they indicate that a group of people is facing some kind of systematic disadvantage, currently, historically or both.

Canada has failed in trying to address this issue IMO. Instead of looking for the systematic problems, we are trying to treat the symptoms. For example, we have passed laws that demand differential sentencing to be more lenient towards convicted criminals if they are of aboriginal back ground.

What we really need is to discuss the root issues. If you grow up on a reserve or in a terrible neihgbourhood, that matters. If the likelyhood of growing up in those places is still racially distributed, that's a major root cause that needs addressing above all others.

this video nails it in my opinion,and i respect those who have chimed in but i notice there is a glaring omission in the discussion,and i think it should be the primary focus:

intent.

words are just symbols.
scratchings on a wall meant to convey meaning.
a meaning that can easily be misconstrued because we all inject our own subjectivity within the abstract nature of words.

it is the INTENT that drives the true meaning of the words we use.
the engine that moves that vehicle forward,with our emotions and thoughts as the fuel.

now there are some words that should never be used,as chaos mentioned,simply due to their vile nature and the history of oppression,suffering and vileness.there are some words where you simply cannot wash the stain of bloodied,vile corruption off of due to their inherent nature.

but do we avoid those words due to political correctness?
or basic,simple human decency and politeness?

this video points to very root of the problem,and that is our very nature.
political correctness seeks to demand we change our vocabulary,our very lexicon,all in the lofty goals of being more sensitive and compassionate,but it ultimately fails because it does not recognize the very nature of who we are.

a polite person has no issue discarding words from his/her lexicon in the name of politeness,but there are those who ARE vile,racist,misogynistic and grotesque...and they simply adhere to this new social norm to avoid detection,and then create NEW scratchings on the wall to convey their loathing and beligerent ignorance,now done in secret.

because it is the INTENT that is the driving force,which then lends itself to situational context to help us all understand the why's and the what-for's.

political correctness does not take this into account because it views the WORDS as being the culprit to societies woes,whereas politeness addresses this problem head-on.

basically it is this:
political correctness=you are being an asshole.
politeness=don't be an asshole.
enoch=already an asshole

too late fuckers!

intent is everything.
because you can call someone a motherfucker!
a MOTHER-FUCKER!
or a hey mothafucker!

intent my friends..intent.

Reductio ad ridiculum

Propagating an "Us and Them" mentality with an appeal to extremes is no better than the extremes themselves . Expressing an opinion doesn't necessitate picking a team to root for/against.

So this is relevant because of a recent surge in support for "radical left" (i.e. democratic socialist, centre-left) Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who has had a huge surge in popularity in recent weeks in a general election campaign he was expected to catastrophically lose by all mainstream sources.

Since winning two Labour party leadership elections in 2015, voted in by historic margins by ordinary members having their say for the first time, he has faced hostile criticism from all mainstream media sources and most politicians including his own party.

The grass roots, which helped drive his earlier victories, appears to be doing the same thing for him in this general election campaign. The grass roots involvement has included youth musicians, artists and activists coming together from multiple campaigns (Save The NHS, WASPI, most unions, including teachers, fire, police and transport, and far too many other interest groups to mention, including multiple disability campaigners). As well as individuals, parents, elderly, and Momentum - a group formed in the afterglow of his leadership win.

On the other hand, Theresa May's and the Tory party's campaign has gone from disaster to disaster. After claiming to be the party of economic security, they released an entirely uncosted manifesto (Labour's was fully costed, other party's included some costings). After trying to make it a match of personalities, she has gone from robotic gaffe to robotic gaffe, dodging questions whilst Corbyn's easy charm and honesty has gone quite a way to show those weaknesses up. She has claimed to be stable and strong, and the best hand to negotiate Brexit, but performed u-turn after u-turn and is now avoiding all but mandatory press contact because her and her brand have become toxic, thanks to things like the "Dementia Tax" and a promise to vote again on allowing barbaric fox hunting. She has been caught out, and regardless of the results of the general election, Theresa May is finished as Conservative leader. Potentially, the back of austerity has been broken and exposed. A movement has been started and even if the Tory's win, watch out for a mass people power'd intervention over their heinous plans.

God i could go on, this has been amazing to watch. Obviously i'm biased towards Labour, and whilst a centre-right opponent might describe things differently, the facts are the same.

Significant things are happening in the UK right now, not wholly dissimilar from the rise of Sanders, only this time it's for the actual prime minister position - Corbyn managed to outmaneuver the corruption of his party. If the election was 2 weeks longer i would predict a huge Labour landslide. After being so ridiculed by a hostile media for so long, election bias rules have forced the press into giving Corbyn a fair hearing and the more people see, the more they appear to like. The question is, have people already cast their vote by post? Will people turn up and vote? A big turnout is expected to favour Labour. A strong youth turnout will be hugely beneficial to Labour.

@bobknight33
you literally just repeated things that i,and pretty much everyone on the sift already know.

and has NOTHING to do with what i was asking.

i stated,quite clearly,that on a philosophical and political level,you would disagree with the justice democrats.there is no confusion here,and no reason for you to have gone down the line the things you disagree with.

the question i asked is how is the justice democrats breaking away from the dominant corporate democrats any different from the tea party breaking away from the mainstream republicans?

hint:there is no difference.

i may disagree with the tea party on many political issues,but i admired and respected their integrity to challenge the monolithic political domination of the republican party.even though i may disagree with them politically.to start their own branch WITHIN the republican party.

which is exactly what the justice democrats are doing.

the main reason why i asked is because you down-voted THIS video promoting the justice democrats,and yet had posted a video by kyle,from secular talk and who is a founding member of the justice democrats.criticizing the corporate democrats for their addiction to big campaign donors.

so i appreciate that you took the time to check out their platform,but are we really surprised that you disagree with the majority of what they are trying to accomplish?

of course not,which is why my question was not "do you agree with the justice democrats?"

because you down-voting this video,promoting justice democrats,and then posting a video FROM the justice democrats is a tad confusing.

i was really just asking you to clarify.

do you respect and admire a grass roots movement within the democratic party that seeks to challenge the status quo? even though you may disagree politically?

or are you SO partisan that anything that has "democrat" in the label is automatically to be admonished,criticized and ultimately ridiculed?

bonus question:were you aware the video you posted was from a founding member of justice democrats?

i guess i am just trying to understand,because the downvote along with you posting a video from the very people you just downvoted is philosophically inconsistent.

i really do not understand you bob.
i get that you are republican,and lean towards the philosophy of the tea party.

i have absolutely no issue with that,but didn't you admonish my post which was promoting the "justice democrats" as not being a grass roots anti-corporate establishment democrats,but rather a tool for outlets like the young turks? whose FIRST order to address.the FIRST thing they are going after is:money in politics.which is exactly what kyle is talking about.

kyle is also talking about giving the boot to not only all the corporate donors,but the very politicians that have LOST,consistently,because they are more interested in dialing for donors than doing their job.pelosi did not retain her position due to her political acumen and ability to pass progressive legislature,but because that woman is a money funding machine.

kyle even mentions the justice democrats!!!!
as a viable option to combat the corruption in the democratic party due to the corrosive influence of corporate money in politics.

you literally just posted a video by secular talk,which is a founding member of justice democrats!

so which one is it bob?

do you respect and admire a small group of democrats who are part of independent media and are creating a group to combat the corporate,establishment democrats? a group who is already
growing in size,and have already got some politicians on the ballot?

or are you sticking to your position you took on my justice democrat video,which was dismissive and critical?

please help me understand bob,because as of right now you are playing two positions that are philosophically inconsistent.

*promote bob's support of the democrats new caucus "the justice democrats",which i am fairy sure is the seventh sign of the apocalypse.

Lets see ....grass roots movement or TYT making you believe it is a grass roots movement.

We have a " fan" who sent in this video and I love it... It is his own organization.


The Justice Democrats are a political action committee[1] founded on January 23, 2017, by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks,

Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk, and

former leadership from the 2016 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign.

Its stated goal of reforming the Democratic Party by running "a unified campaign to replace every corporate-backed member of Congress and rebuild the [Democratic] party from scratch" starting in the 2018 Congressional midterm elections.[2][3]

The Justice Democrats have been described as attempting to create a left-wing populist movement analogous to the right-wing Tea Party movement.[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats

Personally, I would root for the bull.

Informative:
Link to article referenced in the video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/nature-documentary-tricks_n_7249528.html
(but boo, reading, yuck)

Non-informative:
So they can edit in plottwists.
So yeah, bambi lives.
But then cut to: White wolf goes back starving kids. Camera goes slowly to dark as one of the wolf pups exhales for the last time.
But then cut to: A large family of maggots has been waiting for this moment, rooting for bambi in the earlier scene.

should have used lots of things, including a brain. That stump isn't going any where with a root system like that. Use a chainsaw and axe to pulverize the stump into the ground or dig around it to cut off the roots.

Sincere thanks for that, @enoch.

While I am too ignorant of the situation to be completely convinced by either side of this, I must admit that it does seem fishy for Assad to use such weapons now. AND, the CIA and other US agencies / forces have a really long track record of doing shady things to "protect US interests" with proxy wars, false flag operations, etc. etc.

The US funding Syrian "rebels" that are an offshoot of Al Qaeda doesn't shock me much considering that the roots of Al Qaeda itself pretty much come from the CIA funding the Mujahideen in Afganistan...


Anyway, I can see and understand your reasons for choosing to downvote the video. That being said, I don't personally regret upvoting this because it does seem to be a good introduction / refresher to the situation in Syria, at least with respect to the standard media take on it. For someone like me, it gets me the broad strokes in 6.5 minutes, which has some real value.

But your post here (and a PM from eric) are equally valuable to me for pointing out bits where that "broad strokes" intro is controversial or potentially misleading (if not flat out BS). So again, sincere thanks to both of you.

With all the river rock they unearthed, it seems they missed an opportunity to sluce for gold. They might have recovered their $400 if they had used a water powered excavator instead of air power.
Still, good solution. Digging roots sucks.

IMO, Dr pepper only works when paired with smoked bbq. She should try again.
I'm disappointed they didn't try a sasparilla, real root beer. Also, I think they should have offered them a good root beer float, who doesn't like them?

This is the 2nd video where the author got the Concorde story wrong... It became profitable 8 years into service (1984), largely due to BA raising ticket prices and making it more of a luxury. And the Concorde division remained profitable until the crash in France, when they grounded all Concordes while they investigated the root cause. After they started flying again, people were still wary to buy Concorde tickets, and airlines could get more profit out of 1st class tickets on larger, slower planes. So both BA and AF phased them out ~2003.

There are some valid points here, but I think there are multiple interpretations to these issues and it's not so clear cut.

I'll just pick an easy one. Trigger warnings are no more a restriction of free speech then calling a movie rated R VS PG13, it's just more specific, so lets get that out of the way. Take a read of a classic like John Stuart Mills “On Liberty”. He does a great dissemination of freedom and balancing it with causing harm developing the harm principle and the offense principle. It's well thought out and addresses these very issues. There is a recognition that free speech should be regulated depending on if it causes harm. For instance it's illegal to yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater since it could cause harm from a stampede of people trying to leave. I apologize if I get things wrong, but the following is my understanding here, but look here if you're interested. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Theory_of_liberty)

It's a difficult concept to define what is an act of harm. In general this is highly related to concepts of political correctness and has it's very roots in classical liberal thought. In my understanding, Mill would say not to restrict free speech in the case offense only in the case of harm. However, psychology and neuroscience make this line less distinct in caseses of trama or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual, not just offense. This means that harm is less universal and depends on the individual and it leads to the idea of separating spaces based on the line between offense and harm. My understanding is the idea of rating systems, red light districts come from this. Also, now, a newer concept of safe spaces. It's easy to say that people should just suck it up, but it's not always that clear cut and there is historical precedence for this idea.