no this woman is for real.. or "real". She is on a norwegian talk show called "the other side" where there's a panel of a "normal" woman, a antroposophic lady, this "psychic" and a hostess. tonights guest was http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Michelle_Belanger and it was just ridicolous... our psychic here got a feeling that belanger is from another place, maybe the 16th or 17th dimension, so she touched her hand briefly and could confirm "yes, the 17th dimension" and then she started crying because Belanger is such an ancient sould from a far away place that she can't talk about and it is all so beautiful etc.

>> ^gorillaman:

You don't think restricting how people communicate inhibits the development of our culture?

Depends on what you mean by "restrict". If you mean send people to jail for saying things people don't like, yeah, I think that's bad.

Instead, if you mean that no one should ever be allowed to say "what you said is hurtful, and I don't think you should say things like that", I think that you really have to apply the freedom of speech equally. You're free to say whatever you want, but you're going to have to accept the things other people say in response because they have freedom of speech too.

If you're a radio show host, and you say a bunch of racist shit, you shouldn't be thrown in jail. However, if your employer wants to fire you for that, you shouldn't get some legal immunity from that either. You definitely don't have the right to restrict the speech of others who express their disapproval of what you said, nor those who express the view that saying racist things like that just isn't proper.

>> ^gorillaman:

Look here, say someone we know doesn't have a problem with black people calls a black guy a nigger. This black guy doesn't have any unresolved issues with his race or identity. What's left to complain about?


This is pretty wrong-headed. Unresolved issues? You make it sound like black people all need to go to a therapist or something, because there can't possibly be legitimate reasons for them to be offended by being called a nigger.

Let me pretend for a moment you meant that we're talking about a couple of old friends, one is white, one is black, and they call each other nigger all the time as a term of endearment. As long as they're okay with it, I'm okay with it.

But what if they're walking down the street, and a passing black woman overhears the white guy call the black guy nigger, and gets upset?

IMO, she's got every right to voice her discontent, and the friends have every right to tell her to go fuck herself...or explain, or just walk away.

I'd rather the friends be a bit more sensitive about the feelings of people who might overhear them, and I've got every right to say so to all three of them, and they've got every right to tell me where I can shove it in response.

Now this is the story all about how
To flip a burger upside down
So I'll take a minute, just sit right there
I'll tell you how to make a Wendy's Double, don't be scared

In the mid-west cattle are born and raised,
On a ranch where they spend most of their days
Chilling out, maxing, relaxing staying cool
And all standing around, letting out a moo
When a couple of cowboys, who call each other 'dude'
Started wrangling up cattle to sell as food
They sent them to the slaughter to be prepared
And said, "You're going out to our franchises by truck and air!"

Now we've got our patties, come over here
The package says "Fresh" and you can dice the onions there
If anything Id say our patties are square
But one bite and you'll say, 'Nah these are better then theirs!'

Use even number of buns, not seven but eight!
And throw on some cabbage, and cheese (don't grate)
Look at the burger, put it on a plate
And serve it up at minimum wage

Hey, What up, my Honkey

(...don't forget to check the Racial Slur Database)
>> ^jimnms:

As a white boy, I feel left out. We don't have a racial name to call each other by.

As a white boy, I feel left out. We don't have a racial name to call each other by.

yah there are load sof people in the UK that just dont get it ,

they dont reolise that in the end whats required ( as is almost always the case) is a ballence of goverment regulatoin to stop supe rmonoalies and welth migratoin to the super rich. and allow for a open market that is still competative through all levels .

people who think that a "free unregulated " market is the best idea are just compleaty ignorent to the realities that not everyone is on a level playing faild to start with.

its like in motersport saying IT SHOULD BE TOTALY UNREGULATED and what you would get is the team that started with the most money winning all the time. which would result in a lack of competitoin and no real piont in taking part in the race.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.
Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.
Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.

Yep he's a tea bagger, being British and all.

Brits can't be free market fundies, too?

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.
Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.
Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.

Yep he's a tea bagger, being British and all.


Brits can't be free market fundies, too?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.
Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.
Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.


Yep he's a tea bagger, being British and all.

A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.

Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.

Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.

Sounds reasonable. I think Siftquistions were before the time I became active on VideoSift, so I don't know their history or how often they happened. So as I'll be seeing them for the first time, I hope that they aren't a regular thing. I hate the idea of a site like this, with a great community, effectively destroying the friendly atmosphere by calling each other out all the time.

Do we really need these siftquisitions basically? We seem to be getting on just fine without them right now...

My 2 cents.

Hero is the wrong word for this guy, But so is calling that other Vietnam vet a hero. Neither of them are, they both did disgusting things or where part of something atrocious. I understand where the girl is coming from calling him a hero for actually getting up and doing something, and maybe the rest of us pussies will actually make change.


GOTTA LAY YOURSELF UPON THE GEARS to make change fuckers.

I think it is alarming that people get so up in arms about me making that poll. You can always just vote no? It's a only gauge to figure out what people think.. it's not like it's binding or anything.

Furthermore, I made the poll because swampgirl never got around to it and with the newest banning, so it seemed like an opportune time to do it.

I obviously didn't experience his presence as badly as some of you did, but why are you all of a sudden being all rass-ma-tass on my ass for this poll?

Ignore is there for a reason, if you want to use it. The only thing I thought was necessary was to strip him of his powers (which we can basically do with hobble now), because he misused his powers.

Personally I have no contact with choggie and I have no real interest in it either. When this matter is resolved, whichever outcome, I will not bring this up again, unless he does break rules again and should be ousted. I'm not arguing FOR him, I'm arguing from the rules of the sift. Bringing attention to problematic issues should not be stigmatized, or have you such short memories?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:

If you agree his "original" ban was justified, then why are you arguing in favor of repealing it? Furthermore I don't understand what you're intending by contrasting "personal ban" and "account ban".
Dag banned the person, not just the account. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. His behavior (that of the person) was destructive and vindictive to the site. What good would it do any of us to ban his account and allow him back to one day do it again?


Because banning the person was the wrong thing to do. He should have banned the choggie account and let him start over, until he broke the rules on the new one.

I'm not arguing for giving him his old account back, I'm arguing that he should be allowed to make a new account if he wants and have a chance to behave on that. If he can't then another ban can be in order. And if this happens a number of times, then, finally, a ban on his person would be in order.

He got capital punishment for a lot of speeding tickets and reckless driving - I think that's wrong.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
For the old-timers? No. For everyone. VS is not for the people who used to come here, it's for the people who come here now.
choggie is often portrayed as some sort of mad genius... like the Unabomber only less articulate and vastly more destructive.
For those who think we should resurrect choggie in any form: Why?
I concur that his video selection was interesting and unique, but there are lots of people who post interesting and unique videos. Not many people vote for them. choggie was successful because he got here early and didn't have to compete for views the way we all do now.
I disagree that he had anything interesting to say and, if he did, nobody could decipher it. Speaking in tongues does not make him a genius. If you miss choggie's "wisdom", volunteer as an aide on a schoolbus. Those kids call each other "fuckers" and talk about masturbation and circle-jerks left and right. You'll be bathing in choggiesque enlightenment for hours a day, 5 days a week.
If choggie really wants to return, let him email dag and make his case.


You are of course correct that this poll is for everyone, my quip was merely reflecting on that fact that no one who's been here for less than a year know anything of him, other than old comments.

As far as I know, choggie did return for a while on the user Sallyjune, which to my understanding dag knew about and left alone, because he behaved (I may be mistaken, so please correct me if this is wrong). This is essentially a unwritten pardon, but this account was instabanned by blankfist when he found out it was choggie behind the veil. (For the record, I didn't know it was him until after the ban and after the comment I made on the profile.) That was probably the first time the seed of this poll started for me.

I get an uncomfortable feeling when people (especially you, freedom-loving blankfist) go around banning accounts that have not broken any rules. If the user had made any threats or personal attacks or whatever, there would be a reason, but I don't think that the way it works now is a good one. We should only ban for "gross violations" of the sift guidelines, otherwise it should be up to admins to do it.

For the old-timers? No. For everyone. VS is not for the people who used to come here, it's for the people who come here now.

choggie is often portrayed as some sort of mad genius... like the Unabomber only less articulate and vastly more destructive.

For those who think we should resurrect choggie in any form: Why?

I concur that his video selection was interesting and unique, but there are lots of people who post interesting and unique videos. Not many people vote for them. choggie was successful because he got here early and didn't have to compete for views the way we all do now.

I disagree that he had anything interesting to say and, if he did, nobody could decipher it. Speaking in tongues does not make him a genius. If you miss choggie's "wisdom", volunteer as an aide on a schoolbus. Those kids call each other "fuckers" and talk about masturbation and circle-jerks left and right. You'll be bathing in choggiesque enlightenment for hours a day, 5 days a week.

If choggie really wants to return, let him email dag and make his case.

I WAS KIDDING! Did you not read the next line? However, I think being specialtive of data that comes from the distant past is prudent. If one did not question the geocentric model like Copernicus and Galileo, but rather agreed with the Aristotelian consensus would we be better off? Most of the tools we have for looking at the distant past are murky at best, so while useful always have to be taken in stride, which is what I have been saying all along.

Radio age dating, and stellar cartagrophy have all shown themselves to be off by large margins at times. For instance, the believed age of the universe has increased 5 billion years in my life time...a very large number when trying to make other measurements like cosmic inflation and other dependent things. Small and large variances would undo very fundamental understood physical properties of the universe. If the age of the universe changes by any amount, any new theory trying to explain cosmological inflation has to be reworked from scratch...or at the very least re-propagated.

I never said throw it out, I said approach it with cautious skepticism, the same would go for radio carbon dating. It is good for estimations and approximations, but the fact is the data sets could be wildly inerrant. For general things like tectonic tenancies and the slow moment of things overtime, this isn't as big of a deal. But for making very detailed climatic predictions about the overall direction and the results of said direction of the weather is putting to much credence in the information at hand.

If the science is bogus, it doesn't necessarily have to be disproven in a timely manor either. It was nearly two thousands years from Aristotle to Galileo, and that was with something that could bee seen, this can never been seen. Your mistaken my faith in God for my ability to use reason as well. I started an atheist and have a firm back round in science and scientific thinking. The modern movement of science by consolidation more resembles church that true empirical thought. I find that true science is dead, and what is alive now is conjecture by consensus. The empirical model is dead. Science now has more faith than most would care to comment on. Belief in aliens because of the large amount of space and large amount of planets is evidence of faith before empiricism. If you want faith, church is ok, but science is chop full of non-agnostic positions.

My desire is to not be ignorant. I find the current fear mongering as a play on ignorance. I find people defending the radical data as definitive as naive. But I also see pollution as a problem that should be corrected if not just for the sake of doing it or the planet; but for breath of fresh air in the morning, a commodity that is hard to price.

Try not to be jaded by people you assume I am like and look at my argument more fully next time. I don't think you read exactly what I said but you read more what you wanted to read from someone named like I am named. I also was very crass and kinda rude to start off my comments in that thread, so maybe I had it coming

Anyway, it is a problem that is bigger than any one of us, so us calling each other names or mocking each others believe systems is not going to get us anywhere. I will endeavor to not get sarcastic when on a mountain dew high if you will read my objections for what they really are, based in rational skepticism. When confronted with skepticism, my position is to remain as agnostic about projections about what I am skeptical about until that thing is resolved; it is the only logical position.

In reply to this comment by asynchronice:
"O shit, they had climatologists in the 300,000BC"

LOL...you've got to be fucking kidding me. Let's throw out carbon dating too. It's unverifiable! You weren't there ! And how do they know what stars are made of ? They can't verify it !

I don't get the defensiveness here. No debate corporations will use this data for profit. They will use ANYTHING for profit. And governments will always want to tax more of their citizenry. It has no import/relevance on the scientific facts being given. And if the science is bogus, then it will be disproven. PERIOD. That's just how it works. Just because you're spoiled and think the scientific community has to give you a day, a time, and detailed description of what will happen, isn't a reason to dismiss it. If you want that, go back to church.

It weirds me out that people go to great lengths to show how it is all a conspiracy to instill fear and get money; just look at the facts, and make up your own goddamn mind. And if you choose to be willfully ignorant, then do people a favor and stay out of the debate. Some of us actually want to understand what's going on.

Funny how BreakstheEarth calls the other guy, whoever he is, a fundamentalist apologist when his vid is of Hitchens standing there excusing western abuses of power.


How ignorant are you? Hitchens never excused western abuses, he pointed back to the fact he wrote a, if not THE, book on it with 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger'. He never excused the west, but once again renewed his condemnation and calls for war crimes prosecution of those responsible. What video where you watching exactly????


Yeah, we gave the Indonesians weapons knowing full well what they were intended for but thats ok because thirty years later we stopped the killing. THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!!?


I must repeat, what video were you watching? Hitchens never even vaguely suggested that the western turn around thirty years later justified anything. What he stated was that Al-Qaida's stated reasons for hating the west included not the East Timor genocide, but the act of ENDING their support for it.


He admits that history yet still feels like the west has some sort of moral superiority over a human surplus of young, poor, uneducated, jobless fundamentalists.

And yet again, which video did you watch? Hitchens condemned villians of both the west AND the fundamentalists. Unbelievable...