search results matching tag: Dummies

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (137)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (7)     Comments (426)   

Ventriloquist Picking Up Girls On The Subway

chingalera says...

What kind of karma does one have to get hit-upon through a ventriloquist's dummy on the subway anyhow?? I'd have to go home and lose my love.com account and go hit-up some strange!

Baseball Coach Gives Kid A Baseball And A Serious Lecturing

Bad Ventriloquist Bombs Hard on Stage... Gives Up Mid Act.

How to Coil Cables

10 Tragedies Caught on Film

Shepppard says...

As mentioned, these are basically all historical footage of transportation accidents, and famous ones at that. There are definitely a couple in here that are straight up snuff by sift guidelines, but the entire piece as a whole is more of a documentary.

It's not just "Hey look, this guy got shot and now he's bleeding out, lets watch", it's more "This is a look at some of the most terrible accidents mankind has had, each with a backstory as to why it happened, and is generally part of a larger event."

I actually read up on practically every one of these incidents, and to my surprise each one I looked up had detailed information of events that happened up to 100 years ago. The first clip being of a man who wanted to test his parachute idea, so he convinced french authorities to let him test it by having it go over the side of the Eiffel Tower. What he didn't tell them until the day of, however, was that he wasn't going to use a dummy, he was going to test it himself. In a sense, it's the first ever Darwin award caught on film.

Each clip has history to it, and a timestamp / title allowing research into what they are, and is in a sense educational on the broader sense. Again, not just "Hey, this guy was flying too low at an airshow, so lets watch him crash."

Januari said:

Its an interesting discussion... i didn't watch... really i just don't want to watch people die. My instinct tells me this is not 'snuff'... at least as i think of it.

My question would be this... What if these videos were all HD, or from a few years ago.

Learned Helplessness

MichaelL says...

Not to say the concept is invalid but I'm not sure this experiment proves the point. I probably would have been still trying to solve the 'unsolvable' words before I went on to number three. They just ran out of time... nothing to do with learning 'helplessness'. A better structure would have been to flash the words one at a time to both groups. That way the 'dummies' don't get hung up trying to solve the words above. THEN compare what happens when both groups are simultaneously presented with word three.

Verizon & US Government : Can you hear me now? Yes we can!

Black Christians = Uncle Toms

VoodooV says...

hrm..and where are all the republicans...now? That's right in the south.

Hrm...was there some sort of massive migration? Did all the democrats flee the south and did all the republicans replace them?

hrm...doesn't seem to be any massive population change. Which means, you're full of shit as usual.

Dems/Reps flipped in the sixties. The Republican party of Lincoln's time that you have fantasies about doesn't exist anymore. It's a little thing called History and fact.

Your racism is well documented on the sift dummy, you can't erase your post history.

bobknight33 said:

You need to learn how to read a story. that is not what it said or implied.

The Republican party can only tale a back seat to Democrats on playing the race card.

Your 2005 article indicates:
"Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South."

Now where did it say Republican party courted racist for their vote. If that was the case They would have gotten Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson to join the Republican.

As you said "appealing to racists to boost their vote" and exploited racial strife are not the same.

The article went on to say:
"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

The root of the Southern Strategy"
"Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.



To sum this up: Nixon Blamed Democrats for the racial mess of the mid late 60's in order to pull some white voters to switch from Democrat to Republican in order to gain votes.

And for that you call Republican Raciest??? Don't you really mean Democrats ?

After all Democrats were the south. Democrats kept the plantations. Democrats wanted to keep the salve system in place. Democrats started the KKK to keep blacks and whites from voting Republican.


I am sorry that if for some small amount to years that Republicans used race/ race baiting/ raciest to gain more Republican white votes is it is nothing to what Democrats have done. AT least they did not whip/ chain/ rape/ murder/ or lynch any one to gain or keep their vote.

Its true and YOU know it.

Pump-Action Shotgun Fail.

VoodooV says...

Awww bully? poor @renatojj Unable to make good arguments so in an act of desperation plays the victimhood card. Boo hoo hoo...the gun lobby has a stranglehold on our gov't but we're being victimized and oppressed!! If only there was some way for you to...opt out which would end all of this. Freedom is a bitch isn't it?

Nothing cryptic about the relationship between freedom and responsibility. I'm the one who introduced the concept in this argument after all. That's not my complaint dummy. Responsibility is not the same as freedom. You're claiming (once again without anything to back it up) that freedom and responsibility are the same and that if you lower one, you lower the other. I'd ask you to back it up again, but you won't.

If you steal a gun, sure not having a permit doesn't stop you from using it, but you're in danger of losing those precious freedoms you seem to hold so dear. Again, you're changing the argument.

You like to use these loaded terms like freedom. How are you measuring freedom? Is it an objective measurement? Are there SI units for freedom? does a upstanding citizen have say..23 KWas (kilo-Washingtons) but maybe a convicted meth dealer only has 420 mWas? (milli-Washingtons) You seem to be the arbiter of what is freedom and what isn't so please, share with us your math!

Coercion??!! Again, you're using this loaded language to emotionally manipulate us. I think George Carlin called it "Spooky Language!" Which laws are coercion and which ones aren't? How can you tell? When I obey traffic laws, am I being coerced? When I decide to not kill someone with a gun because the law says it's bad, is that coercion too??? Your two examples you give are really bad. There is no difference between the two except for loaded language. One example has positive language, the other one negative. If only there was some objective measure other than your truthiness.

To your last point, but I already answered this in my previous post, by that logic, we shouldn't have ANY laws and thus we would become SUPER-Responsible!! It's a nice theory and all, but the reality is that life would degenerate into mob rule. How many other people have to pay for your "mistakes" before you learn your lesson? How much suffering and anguish does it take to "learn your lesson?" Sorry. I think you're not a student of history otherwise you'd know that this has already been tried in the past...the distant past. It doesn't work...that's why we have laws in the first place. The jury is in on this one. People generally like it that we have laws and an enforcement arm that attempts to stop the infringement of peoples' rights *before* it happens so that people don't have to "learn their lesson" at the expense of someone else's suffering.

You're a selfish sociopathic dick if you think otherwise.

It's all fun and games until someone infringes on *your* rights then suddenly, your stance changes. Or are you volunteering yourself to have a criminal come in and kill you and your loved ones. But hey, its ok. Freedom will teach the criminal a lesson...so it's all cool!!

Either you didn't already know this or you're just living up to your avatar pic. I'm starting to think it's the latter.

renatojj said:

@VoodooV Wow, why are you being such a bully? You're not actually stopping to think.

The question you say I'm avoiding is the one I'm trying my best to explain on every post, yet you're constantly avoiding it yourself (as if there's something inextricably cryptic about the relationship between freedom and responsibility), all the while accusing me of being a coward. Like saying it repeatedly will make me or anyone else believe it.

Are you also placing on me the burden of thinking for the both of us?

If you want to own a gun, you buy, steal or make your own gun, there, you have a gun. The gun won't stop working if you don't have a permit! Is that math too hard to understand, is being overly antagonistic and close-minded your "debate strategy"?

The voting process, on the other hand, seems to be something that requires registration (again, I'm not an expert on voting, so forgive me if I'm wrong), otherwise we end up just shouting to ourselves, "I vote for X"!

I don't think rules inevitably destroys our freedoms, let's make a more refined distinction:

- If a rule is meant to stop people from infringing on each other's freedoms, if it's a rule that makes people less likely to coerce each other, it's a good rule because we end up with less coercion happening (even counting the coercion necessary to enforce the rule), we end up with a more civilized society. There are not many of those kinds of rules around.

- If it's a rule that imposes some regulation because we don't trust that people will be responsible enough to do what's best for them regarding something unrelated to coercion, we not only restrict their freedom by coercion (in this case, coercion by the government), it doesn't make coercion less likely, so it's likely a bad rule.

If I impose stricter gun control, as a government, I'm coercing people to comply with more rules, that means a little more coercion ends up happening in society, from government towards the people. Not counting that kind of coercion (necessary to enforce any rule), stricter gun control doesn't seem to make people directly less likely to coerce each other, does it?

My question was, "won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?". Like I said, if I make decisions for someone, I can make them act responsibly, but that doesn't make them more responsible, because I'm still the one making their decisions.

Freedom is a good teacher. If I let someone make mistakes and pay for them, they'll most likely avoid them all by themselves, eventually. If I make decisions for them though, they end up with less freedom, and, therefore, tend to act less responsibly, wouldn't you agree?

Nation Demands New Photo of Edward Snowdon

MilkmanDan says...

That's (part) of why I use Firefox with Adblock, Noscript, default block cookies (whitelist when necessary), and even ran that one that lists all the external domains that a page is trying to scuttle off to with allow/disallow for a while. Eventually I got sick of having to allow 10 new domains every time I visited a new page for the first time (or see a video from a new host here on the sift), which was causing me to just give up and load in Chrome rather than stick with it. So now I'm back to just that first set.

However, the thought of somebody running a honeypot operation and generating dummy data for advertisers (or the NSA) to mine makes me cackle with delight....

Fletch said:

"... private information is being collected by someone other than advertisers."

Hmmm... never thought of it that way.

Female Supremacy

gorillaman says...

This is infuriating to watch because most of the examples of 'female supremacy' are legitimate examples of the evils done by substandard philosophy.

Anyone can find a dozen or so atrocities committed in the name of practically any ideological movement, which in themselves do nothing whatsoever to discredit its core ideals.

Feminism is not the pursuit of female supremacy, don't be retarded, although I suppose we do have to throw in the asterisk that there are those who call themselves feminists and fantasize about exactly that. Neither is feminism the simple pursuit of sex equality, but likewise a lot of dummies who haven't thought about it properly call themselves feminists for that reason. We don't need a grand theoretical framework to explain the idea that neither sex, or particularly the male sex, should dominate the other; that's, like, obvious. That's called basic rationality.

What feminism is, actually, is a confused and overblown patchwork ideology supported by mostly well-meaning but misguided morons in conjunction with a smaller number of loud-mouthed bigots. This is also a fairly accurate description of a lot of the backlash against feminism.

I chose to interpret this video as a somewhat exaggerated counterpoint to mainstream thought on sex politics, an example of devil's advocacy rather than the wholly sincere rant of a delusional. Whether that's true or not, it is the best way to watch it.
It will be interesting to compare its reception to this video on more or less the same theme.

I do consider myself to be oppressed by feminism; not as a man, which I'm not - I am a genderless mind - but as a rationalist. In reality, we are the most sorely persecuted sector of modern society.

An elegant weapon for a more civilized age

MilkmanDan says...

Mythbusters, I propose this as your next assignment.

I want to see two "Buster" dummies with hydraulic arms swinging real chainsaws at each other!

*edit: Oh, and I *love* the title!

Sigourney Weaver Dummy

Sigourney Weaver Dummy

Jim Carrey takes on Gun Control, as only he can

EMPIRE says...

This is not about a difference of opinion, it's about policy.

And boy oh boy, I sure am a dummy! Here I was, happy with my liberal ways, and I forgot I'm an ignorant who doesn't know there are people with different opinions.
We liberals sure are stupid!

Go troll somewhere else.

Velocity5 said:

@EMPIRE said: "As opposed to conservatives who see sex and gays everywhere?"

Responding to criticism with "but conservatives are just as bad as liberals" doesn't seem like enlightened liberalism.

I haven't advocated conservativism. I'm simply someone who was a liberal until I grew up and realized there's an entire intellectual world that liberals don't know they're not aware of. And they'll fight to keep that way.



@Fletch @Deano:

It sounds like intellectual dishonesties don't bother you guys, as long as you're entertained.

"Let's just lie and say people with different opinions than ourselves are the source of our high violent crime rates."



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon