I agree completely. I think it backfired for conservatives, because all moderate people saw was the most extreme elements just yelling about random stuff, and Fox News spinning it as some sort of noble revolution.

Mostly I think it was insane to try to make it out to be a public outcry against Obama; he hadn't even been President for 100 days yet.

I actually believe Fox when they say they didn't plan or organize those protests, though I do think toward the end there were a lot of professional Republican-aligned advocacy groups trying to bring professional organizing to some of the rallies.

I wouldn't be surprised if next tax day we see a series of professionally organized protests. We'll see if they find a good message to push by then.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I kid because I think it's pretty silly that the tea parties got so much attention and yet there was not a unified message conveyed to anybody about anything.

The overall message was, "we're fed up." Fed up with what? The subjects being address ranged from the irrelevant (Obama's birth certificate) to very poignant issues such as the deficit, the border, the Iraq war and so on.

You're probably right that it doesn't fall into the category of "slacktivism" but it is still ineffective. What a waste to rally that many people with no clear purpose to be united on and no clear solution being proposed.

Attending an in-person protest definitely counts as activism. Attending a televised protest is more effective than one that receives no media attention.

The tea parties certainly reached a far larger audience than all the anti-Iraq war protests combined due to its wall-to-wall coverage by Fox News. Whether the message of those protests was focused and effective is a whole other matter.

I'm more inclined to reserve the word "slacktivism" for things that have just about zero chance of making an impact (e.g. a yellow "Support the Troops" magnet, signing online petitions, leaving comments on the New York Times' website saying "WHAY WON'T YOU LOOK FOR OBAMA's MISSING BIRTH CERTIFICATE, YOU DMAN MARXISTS?!", etc.).

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
...or attending a tea party. I counts because it's covered by Fox News, right?

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 100 stars, earning you status of Gold-100 Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.

That's the approach of someone who can speak English debating someone who can't speak English on the subject of correct English.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Now, now, now.

Is that the "Obama" approach to debate or the "Bush" method?

Hmm.

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
I can't believe you fucking people are having this fucking argument.

Those of you with the correct position, just say "you're retards" and walk away.

What's funny is that the "I could care less" thing is very low on my list of grammar pet peeves (that guy was just bugging me). Conversational language is far looser than the written word, and a lot of things get a pass from me. It is also ever evolving. However, while it may be about what is implied or inferred, if you're not careful with what you say, those two can be in direct opposition. That can definitely be the case with "I could care less" (though folks seem to have accepted it). The lazier we get with our language, the less* we will understand each other in the future. The world has enough trouble communicating as it is, we shouldn't help it along.


*Less vs Fewer IS one of my pet peeves, on the other hand.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
"Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred)."


Yes, and "language" is about what is implied and what is inferred. Grammar is not the only factor involved in communication.

Language is the systematic creation and usage of systems of symbols —each referring to linguistic concepts with semantic or logical or otherwise expressive meanings.

Communication is the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs. Communication sometimes has nothing to do with grammar.



That being said, it bugs the CRAP outta me when somebody says, "I could care less."






In reply to this comment by Bullwinkle:
"Yep, mixed up imply/infer and didn't reread my post. Whoopee, what a tame and insanely common mistake. Notice how I can admit where I'm wrong instead of kicking the air like a mule."

A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.

"What an amazingly thorough rebuttal, just stubbornly asserting the opposite without addressing the logic of my post. Why would anyone interpret that you cared enough to give a preference unless an actual preference followed? Explain. Your entire argument rests on this. For "I could care less" to imply caring when the opposite was intended, it has to be inferred that way by the person to whom it's spoken."

I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.

Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant. As another example, people may know what you mean when you use a double negative, that doesn't make it correct.

I can't help but smile when the soloist starts.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I love this song. I sang this arrangement with a quartet years ago. Ahhh memories.

...and I think their accents are cute.

[EDIT] Oh, I get it now. The first video is some retarded internet user's redubbing of the original SIGGRAPH short (which did have the sound effects and McFerrin music, identical to the audio in the one you posted), and thus is still an incorrect titling and labeling, while the one you posted is the theatrical short that all the movie-going audiences saw.

By the way, you can keep your political commentary out of our conversation, since it is entirely unrelated to the reason I claimed dupe and downvoted. Thanks.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Whoopsie. Look before you leap.
That video has some lame dubbed music. This is the remastered copy with the original Bobby McFerrin.

Thanks anyway (for the downvote).


That other video that you linked to is kinda like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. Looks fine on the surface, but once you really dig in you find it's nothing more than a crock.

In reply to this comment by HaricotVert:
dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Pixar-Classic-Short

http://politics.videosift.com/talk/Wonder-how-UsesProzac-feels-about-comments-by-thepinky

What the fuck was that, then?

Next time, just tell thepinky that downvotes can be seen if you hover over the downvote button.

You puppet.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Still don't see anywhere that I've attacked you personally.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
"...I have never waged any personal attacks against you..."

Oh, really? Please refer to my previous comment on your profile.

And that's all I could care to contribute to an issue that I don't think is meaningful.

"...I have never waged any personal attacks against you..."

Oh, really? Please refer to my previous comment on your profile.

And that's all I could care to contribute to an issue that I don't think is meaningful.

Hahahahaha! Oh, wow. Are you fucking kidding me? Wow..

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I'm glad you appreciate them. I have great personal connection to the cause of furthering people's understanding of the dangers of pornography. Members of my extended family have suffered greatly due to it's negative effects. I feel it can be as addictive as the most powerful drugs. People who tell themselves that it's innocent or healthy are just lying to themselves.

I didn't see that thread until recently. There must be a flaw in the code for that page because there is not comment box.

Thanks for sharing those stats. I saw them earlier standing over Boyfriend's shoulder and cheered inside.

You never felt the need to comment on the Pornography post, though?

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Okay. That's not the way I see it, though.

In this instance, I rely on facts and studies. You, on the other hand, seem to "take it the way you want it."

In reply to this comment by LadyDeath:
Sure Take it the way you want it

Sure Take it the way you want it

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Do you have any sources to back up your statement or is it just your opinion?

-At the 2002 American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers convention, attorneys present reported that 56% of their recent divorce cases resulted from a spouse’s compulsive Internet porn use. (Paul, 2005)

-41% of surveyed adults admitted they felt insecure and less attractive due to their partner’s pornography use. (Yarhouse, Marriage Related Research)

-One psychiatrist specializing in treatment of sexual dysfunction estimates that 60% of his cases are directly related to the Internet. (The Sunday Paper, Atlanta)

-87% of the molesters of girls, and 77% of the molesters of boys reported regular use of hard-core porn. (Marshall, 1988)

-Zillmann and Bryant’s research studies, completed in the 1980’s, were so successful at proving the irreversible negative effects of viewing pornography that ethics boards will not allow further studies on the topic to be undertaken. (Paul, 2005)

In reply to this comment by LadyDeath:
I come here only because I Love To vote for people comments lol ^ ^

Edited* The ones that are worthwhile and make me laugh at this nonsense post.

I must've misunderstood your comment, then.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
For the record, I never advocated sending troops into North Korea and Sudan.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I do know about it, but you were talking about sending troops onto new battlegrounds in N. Korea and Sudan.

I think before we start more wars, we need to do more diplomacy and foreign aid.

The answer to both North Korea and Darfur/Sudan is China. We have a relationship with them now, let's twist their arm a little.

If we invaded Sudan, what's the mission? If we invated N. Korea, what's the mission?

Toppling the existing regime and replacing it with one of our own design?

No thanks. Been there, done that.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Just saw this comment from back in the day.

Do you not know about all the help we have provided around the world that has nothing to do with violence?



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Can't the US do something around the world that doesn't involve the military?

I do know about it, but you were talking about sending troops onto new battlegrounds in N. Korea and Sudan.

I think before we start more wars, we need to do more diplomacy and foreign aid.

The answer to both North Korea and Darfur/Sudan is China. We have a relationship with them now, let's twist their arm a little.

If we invaded Sudan, what's the mission? If we invated N. Korea, what's the mission?

Toppling the existing regime and replacing it with one of our own design?

No thanks. Been there, done that.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Just saw this comment from back in the day.

Do you not know about all the help we have provided around the world that has nothing to do with violence?



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Can't the US do something around the world that doesn't involve the military?

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 85 stars, earning you status of Gold Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.