>> ^hpqp:

>> ^messenger:
SB doesn't call people whores. He says anyone who has sex outside marriage is doing something wrong. Everything else is your mind filling in the blanks. An opinion sincerely put forward is a positive input. A "negative actor", as you say, and more sincere than QM, by far.>> ^Payback:
Me, I wonder why ShinyB is allowed to stay. All it does is call the female sifters whores and damn the rest of us to the Enternal Fires. Talk about no positive input.


Actually, yes he does, but his blue-balled, self-righteous self-repression gave birth to a running joke (isn't that right, you harlots @UsesProzac and @berticus?) so I guess it's okay. That being said, at least most of QM's idiotic comments are short, not pages-long preaching. And he sometimes makes a funny comment, unlike shinyb.


Yea, what hpqp said, I was just too lazy to look up those posts...

>> ^messenger:

SB doesn't call people whores. He says anyone who has sex outside marriage is doing something wrong. Everything else is your mind filling in the blanks. An opinion sincerely put forward is a positive input. A "negative actor", as you say, and more sincere than QM, by far.>> ^Payback:

Me, I wonder why ShinyB is allowed to stay. All it does is call the female sifters whores and damn the rest of us to the Enternal Fires. Talk about no positive input.



Actually, yes he does, but his blue-balled, self-righteous self-repression gave birth to a running joke (isn't that right, you harlots @UsesProzac and @berticus?) so I guess it's okay. That being said, at least most of QM's idiotic comments are short, not pages-long preaching. And he sometimes makes a funny comment, unlike shinyb.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm not against having outlets for pure unfettered self-expression, but much like a primal scream therapy session, it doesn't lend itself to real communication very well.>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.
I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).
I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.

Why do you think so many need an anonymous outlet for expression? Our culture is so repressive, on an individual scale, and that fear of retribution is real. I think the instinct that the internet is another world where we can reinvent ourselves is something to be encouraged rather than dismissed as a game or a fantasy. We're able to communicate now unburdened by circumstances or the disapproval of our peers. I'd say the less this reality interpenetrates with the lower world the better.
Personally there's almost no difference between my online and offline behaviour, except when I talk to my boss, but most people are more social than I am; they have more people pushing down on them and more to lose if they push back. So let them have their freedom, some might even have something worthwhile to say.

>> ^dag:

Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.
I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).
I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.


Why do you think so many need an anonymous outlet for expression? Our culture is so repressive, on an individual scale, and that fear of retribution is real. I think the instinct that the internet is another world where we can reinvent ourselves is something to be encouraged rather than dismissed as a game or a fantasy. We're able to communicate now unburdened by circumstances or the disapproval of our peers. I'd say the less this reality interpenetrates with the lower world the better.

Personally there's almost no difference between my online and offline behaviour, except when I talk to my boss, but most people are more social than I am; they have more people pushing down on them and more to lose if they push back. So let them have their freedom, some might even have something worthwhile to say.

>> ^chingalera:

Jeeeesus! Wow man, the Chinese got the United States beat on so many levels, including insurance fraud!
Proof, that the trappings of an industrialized capitalist society in the hands of repressed Asian children become unstable at room temperature ☢


Just like one video of an american religious zealot chastising gays is indicative of the intolerance of the immature and disrespectful west and their fiendish democracy?

I've got news for you - the west has been up to this and more for years.

Jeeeesus! Wow man, the Chinese got the United States beat on so many levels, including insurance fraud!

Proof, that the trappings of an industrialized capitalist society in the hands of repressed Asian children become unstable at room temperature ☢

Thanks, messenger.
I's guessing this video may trigger some repressed memories about this priest.
In reply to this comment by messenger:
*promote the bullshit.

>> ^Kofi:

Porn for men afraid of vaginas.


To think that fear of the vagina would spawn such corny animation...The centuries of male influence and sexual repression make s the Japanese a special bunch, eh?

@rbar have these thousands of philosophers, lawyers and activists ever considered that, if people have material needs, they may or may not be satisfied in exchange for money, money that may or may not be provided through a job? What about other ways of making money, like being self-employed, a businessman, an investor, or a beggar? What if I can satisfy those needs without money, as a farmer?

Should the self-employed have a right to customers? Should a businessman or an investor have a right to profits, or a beggar to handouts? Should farmers also be entitled to good crops? If there's no direct and necessary link between job->survival, what, then, would justify it being declared an unalienable human right?

Your objection about government causing social injustice, sounds to me like asking, "if government outlaws drinking, how is it wrong to stop people from drinking if it's against the law?". If government outlaws something that doesn't use force, it inevitably uses force to outlaw it, thus increasing the overall use of force in society and diminishing our condition as a civilization. On the other hand, any force used to repress wanton shooters is a good deterrent to their use of force, no?

About laziness, your characterization of capitalism as "more and more efficiency", with no regard to human hapiness is very typical of a socialist's portrayal of capitalism as a social order of relentless profit-seeking and competition. When in fact, capitalism is the most cooperative of any social system ever devised. Markets thrive in capitalism, and markets are a bunch of people trading and making agreements with each another. There's nothing more cooperative than trades and handshakes. You get more cooperation in capitalism than in feudalism, mercantilism, corporatism, socialism or any other "ism". In the end, you're allowed more choices, including that of softer lifestyles in capitalism, than anywhere else.

The Libor and derivatives markets scandals, are not examples of free markets at all, they're abuses where the bad behavior was encouraged by policy. What you and I argued about making the weak complacent, also applies to bad rules encouraging excessive greediness and risk-taking that went unpunished, bad behavior that would, otherwise, be "regulated" in a free market by the very real prospect of bankruptcy, and being sued for fraud instead of a get-out-of-jail-free card and juicy bailouts granted by a secretive central bank (which wouldn't exist in a free market!).

Things are not necessarily less regulated when you have economic freedom, and anything resulting from deregulation is not an automatic example of free markets at work. Regulation just happens to come from the bottom-up, from forces in the market itself, instead of by force from the top-down, by well-intentioned bureaucrats who fancy writing human rights declarations in their spare time.

*beg you undersexed, repressed,Baldmonkeys!

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^criticalthud:
the only way public opinion can be divided on this is if half the public is completely retarded.

Have you met the public?


yes, i've traveled around the world.
but still, it was mostly a joke.

but let's be serious. what sort of reactionary behavior would you expect from a populace that has been on the receiving end of brutal totalitarianism for the better part of a century?

it's like getting mad at people in the gay parade for over doing it just a little after being repressed for the last 2000 years.
so yeah, it's fucking retarded. it's like punishing a child after you've taught him how to be an asshole.
it's like pretending that THESE are the people that have gone too far.

How do you know when someone likes porn?

A. If they have a pulse, they like porn.

The more they protest how bad porn is, the bigger and more deviant their stash usually is. The porn industry exist precisely because of the vast amount of people who buy it. Republicans love the free market and the porn industry is about as free market as it gets so it's ridiculous when they try to squash it. Their hypocrisy continues unabated.

Now yes, There are plenty of people who genuinely don't like porn, but they're the exception, not the rule.

Basic conservation of energy. The more you attempt to repress something, the greater the chance it comes out in a dangerous way. So instead of hiding human nature, try to embrace it.

Oh youre so right, I really fancy arguing that there is no battery here, perhaps common assault but who gives a fuck... Seriously dude, you need to get off that high horse and realise your opinions are as inconsequential as the very short period of time this vid will be visible and about as important. Meanwhile why don't you spend your energies somewhere more meaningful, like lying down in the road to peacefully protest whatever it is that Peace Will Find a Way Weekly tells you is flavour of the month - perhaps articulated lorries. This is all rather boring now and lets face it, yesterdays news. You go ahead and butthurt rage a little more, i'm moving on. Peace out Mannnn.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^thumpa28:
{edit} gah im breaking my golden rule of not arguing with retards on vs, ah well. You think everyone should research the vagaries of common assault vs battery before commenting on a video about someone trying to grab the olympic torch... hokay. How about I stick to commenting on the video at hand and leave the shouty shouty nerd rage to the people like yourself, who try to turn every post into an emotional battle, presumably because thats how you get your emotional needs met rather than learning how to interact in the real world. Im sorry you feel that way, hope you get fixed soon. Im going to leave you alone now.
So, in other words, you were completely wrong, got schooled, and now you're playing the "waaah, I'm not talking to you" card. About what I'd expect...
>> ^gorillaman:
The ideal of peaceful protest is one of the great propaganda victories of repressive government.
'You can have your little protest as long as you don't actually try to accomplish anything. We can steal billions of public money to fund a PR stunt for our nationalist authority, effectively equivalent to several days of forced labour for everyone in the UK, but if you try to grab a torch we bought with your money then you're a violent criminal.'

Er, yeah, if you assault someone then you are a violent criminal. Quelle fucking surprise.
And I never said you couldn't be disruptive. He could have gotten a group of people to lie down on the road in front of the torch bearer, he could have streaked along side her, he could have done something vaguely clever or even funny. A funny story will bring attention to your cause (see the Yes Men and the Arctic Ready campaign).
Unfortunately, those things require wit and imagination, two attributes he clearly lacks.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of us simply don't give a fuck. Why? Because, frankly, the Olympics ranks pretty low on the list of things to be concerned about.

>> ^thumpa28:

{edit} gah im breaking my golden rule of not arguing with retards on vs, ah well. You think everyone should research the vagaries of common assault vs battery before commenting on a video about someone trying to grab the olympic torch... hokay. How about I stick to commenting on the video at hand and leave the shouty shouty nerd rage to the people like yourself, who try to turn every post into an emotional battle, presumably because thats how you get your emotional needs met rather than learning how to interact in the real world. Im sorry you feel that way, hope you get fixed soon. Im going to leave you alone now.

So, in other words, you were completely wrong, got schooled, and now you're playing the "waaah, I'm not talking to you" card. About what I'd expect...

>> ^gorillaman:

The ideal of peaceful protest is one of the great propaganda victories of repressive government.
'You can have your little protest as long as you don't actually try to accomplish anything. We can steal billions of public money to fund a PR stunt for our nationalist authority, effectively equivalent to several days of forced labour for everyone in the UK, but if you try to grab a torch we bought with your money then you're a violent criminal.'


Er, yeah, if you assault someone then you are a violent criminal. Quelle fucking surprise.

And I never said you couldn't be disruptive. He could have gotten a group of people to lie down on the road in front of the torch bearer, he could have streaked along side her, he could have done something vaguely clever or even funny. A funny story will bring attention to your cause (see the Yes Men and the Arctic Ready campaign).

Unfortunately, those things require wit and imagination, two attributes he clearly lacks.

Meanwhile, most of the rest of us simply don't give a fuck. Why? Because, frankly, the Olympics ranks pretty low on the list of things to be concerned about.