In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
QFT?>> ^probie:

QFT



Quoted for truth

Thanks for the support! I wasnt sure if that was going to explode in my face but I thought I needed to stand up and be counted, so cheers!

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Hear hear.>> ^moodonia:

I think this video is bang on the money pointing the larger hypocrisy in all this, and in particular the Dworkin-esque ranting that has been a staple of daytime tv since the 80's.
Recently two sportscasters made off camera sexist comments about the abilities of female referees, they both lost their jobs.
These five fuckwits are breaking their hearts laughing about a gruesome sex attack that almost resulted in murder, I assume they all still have jobs? I'm guessing the show hasnt been cancelled?
I find it very encouraging that people are calling them out on this, about time.
promote

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 2 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Yeah. They sneak that stuff in.

I have to say, I was deeply intrigued by the whole scenario. I WANTED it to be tough guys singing.

I'm glad it is getting the votes -- it deserves it.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Huh, I guess I never watched the last ten seconds...>> ^bareboards2:

I know I can't do this but...
commercial
I was very intrigued by how this video event happened as I watched it.... wondered about visual stereotypes, and why it is so amazing to see "tough guys" sing, when did "tough guys" learn to harmonize, blah blah, it was quite the journey.
Then at the end, discovered it was a Puma ad. Oh.

I am not really sure, I think he is talking about the fallacy of explanation. This is an informal fallacy were the scope of the question is too small both in explanation of the scope and depth of the phenomena. The jist of the conversation was I suggested that voting might be a bad thing to include as a birth right, that some right of passage might make for a better system for all. You would value you vote more, and it would make sure that the most vested in doing the leg work on being a good citizen would have a say in how things went on. There are pit falls, as in all systems, to avoid. And I wasn't even proposing it as an end all solution, but he labeled me a fascist and so I ended the conversation and any desire to participate with conversations with him anymore.

I can handle ideas outside my way of thinking, I rather enjoy it...iron sharpens iron and all. But I don't like dogmatic attacks against any idea that isn't considered normal. DYS has the same unreasonable "faith" in pure democracy as he criticizes in people with the same faith in market economics; both misplaced imo. I find a systemic problem with democracy, and I strive to find a solution for its inherit flaws. I might come back and conclude that it is the best solution given that weaknesses of man, but I won't give up thinking outside the box because of dogma.


In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
@GeeSuss what's the blue sky defence?

@DFT why are you fucking chickens? That's not cool man, you can seriously harm them psychologically.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I had a similar interaction with a particular videosifter, except that it was about denying poor people the right to vote instead of killing them. When I expressed shock and outrage, he used the blue sky defense.

On average, less that 50% of people vote with no restrictions. And you can only vote for people on the ballet in most cases. Nor was it solely poor people, but go ahead and keep fucken that chicken.

Cheers! Thanks for keeping an eye out
In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Heya,

Should be *celticked!

http://videosift.com/video/My-Day

Ha!hAHAHA!

Sorry, I know I'm trolling. I just love how saying that gets such a rise out of people.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
-_-

In reply to this comment by Ryjkyj:
Hey! This is that Twilight band right!

I knew I'd seen it before, so I just did a search using 'jar jar' instead of 'jar jar binks.' Still, the Possible Duplicates function mostly sucks when submitting videos, so don't feel bad. It's happened to to us all, and usually several times at that. C'est la vie.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Argh! I even did a search for Jar Jar Binks before I posted it and Ant's video didn't show up! I bet this whole sifting thing was a lot easier back in the day

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Jar-Jar-Returns-to-Visit-Anakin-SkywalkerDarth-Vader

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Burdturgler seems a bit tardy on this one so here goes!

Congrats on the Silver!



Have an equally tardy reply :>

Thanks

Congratulations! Your dedication to keeping VideoSift clear of dead videos has earned you your "Grim Reaper" Level 1 Badge!

Yeah, I saw it. I think that Rachel should have had at least one question that wasn't fundamentally "I found evidence that someone who worked for your organization said something sympathetic to white supremacists no less than 10 years ago, what's your response?"

However, Stein's response was "you're making that up" to all of it, and he'd just impugn her motives and credibility. She was operating on a tenuous guilt by association tactic, but he never had any response to it other than ad hominem.

Rachel had some long questions, but he definitely was trying to do a "filibuster" style interview, where he just tries to talk the whole time, without letting her ask follow ups. For the first 3 minutes or so, she didn't really get a word in edgewise until she started getting pushy.

IMO, all I really need to know about this FAIR organization is that they proudly support the new Arizona legislation -- to me, that makes me highly dubious about their motives and integrity. Moreso when their president comes on Maddow's show to basically just say she's a liar and a fraud, and BTW so is the Southern Poverty Law Center.

That's the kind of shit you expect from highly partisan organizations, not from some sort of reasonable, centrist organization.

It was painful to watch, but I don't think Rachel's really to blame -- everyone she brings on is some sort of political activist of some sort, and usually when she brings on anyone even slightly right wing, they haul out the trope about her being an unreliable partisan journalist, and just repeat that through the whole interview with increasing loudness.

It seems to work out well for them, because a lot of people come away from the interview going "wow, that was just a shouting match, I guess Rachel is just like BillO", even people who normally think Rachel is worth listening to.

I've never seen her make a factual mistake on these kind of things without issuing a correction. She's definitely got a partisan editorial stance, but I generally share her editorial viewpoint on the events of the day. I think a lot of politics these days is played on the grounds of "who's a credible voice in the media", and anyone to the right of center has a strongly vested interest in trying to diminish her credibility. It's why they never even try to really respond to her facts with anything other than "you're making that up", because it's an accusation they wouldn't dare level at a more firmly established member of the press, and that kind of shocking disrespect makes casual observers think "wow, nobody talks to real reporters that way!" and has the side effect of making people doubt her credibility.

Eh, enough with my little rant. I think the guy from FAIR is a tool, and the way he acted is what made that interview look so ugly, not what Rachel did.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Hey NR, did you see Rachel Maddow's interview with Dan Stein on Thursday night? What did you think? He made some points that have been bothering me about Rachel's methods recently.

E.g. taking information from 25 years ago about one person and applying it to an organisation they are a member of today. People's views can change over that length of time and she never seems to take that into account. She also alternated between berating Stein for interrupting her (lengthy) questions and talking over him when he was trying to rebut. It was very disappointing how much it reminded me of O'Reilly.

It seems to me that she provides very discontinuous reports on organisations and people she disagrees with for the sake of making her viewers disagree with them to.

Again, I'd really appreciate your views,

James

Fixed, thanks for the note.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
*dead
"This video is no longer available due to terms of use violation."

Quite!

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Hey this embed for the iceland hating guy has about 322,000 views. Don't you hate it when people dupe popular videos on youtube?

♫And they called him the Irish Rover♫

Congrats on the bronze, mate.

nevermind, looks like someone found it already