>> ^zaust:

Never encountered Mr Rogers before and have to say his very disturbing. Beyond creepy, is this a spoof trailer of a horror movie?


Growing up in Canada without cable, I seldom watched Mr. Rogers (we had Mr. Dressup ) so I can understand how his demeanor can seem a little... different than how most people operate on television or in person. I found the way Mr Rogers spoke a little hard to get used to, but over the last few years I've come to appreciate the way the man can speak simply and directly, right through the television screen. His words can be simultaneously piercing and comforting, yet always kind.

Without the sift I'd never have discovered the kind of impact he has had *promoting honesty and good nature over a generation of children and grownups.

These clips are among my favorites:
http://videosift.com/video/Rare-Interview-With-Mister-Rogers-1986
http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Rogers-v-the-GOP-1969
http://videosift.com/video/Fred-Rogers-Accepts-the-Lifetime-Achievement-Award-1997

I gave up on Clancy when I was 16. I don't remember which book it was but there was a scene at the start where two full grown US military spook types meet in a bar somewhere in SE Asia, Bangkok maybe. They have a 'some damn fool said you were the best' type conversation then start good naturedly sparring with their knives, as you do. He describes the 'whirling, twisting' playfight -- for AGES (with a full on army boner no doubt).

Then he adds that a crowd (of natives) had gathered and were whooping and cheering them on delightedly. When the boys (let's call them JAKE and CLINT) have got it out of their system the crowd disperse, sad the fun is over. Then our heroes get back to planning who the US gov wants them to go and assassinate.

Clancy deals in right wing wet dreams. Interesting that his lot are starting to sell the same bullshit but now against US citizens - OWS. Couldn't play this game though. Pretending to shoot Castro in the head at the start of Black Ops made me feel queasy already. I mean Castro is a royal dick but millions of kids being taught to shoot real people by intellectually and morally questionable GAMES PRODUCERS?

All a bit dark.

>> ^hpqp:

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.
Care to give some examples?



This is from our dear atheist, Christopher Hitchins. (I was fairly sure Hitchins was like this, but i couldn't remember specific points like you said; well i found a much better source for the matter: a small letter by him over this exact matter).

Christopher Hitchins little note (this drew some fire too it looks like when it came out):

------
You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in passing, that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalized agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.

Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their lives under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and [around the clock] monitoring [a celestial North Korea]. But I cannot [personally] imagine anything more horrible or grotesque. It would be worse, in a way, if the supervision was benign...

I think that this conviction does bear on the mental and moral resources that are necessary if one hopes to live [on the contrary, if one hopes to live in dissent or if one hopes to live] "as if" one were free. In a much-quoted reflection on America's original sin [of slavery], Thomas Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I remember that god is just." However, if there really was a god and he really was just, then there would be little enough for believers to tremble about; it would be a consolation that infinitely outweighed any imaginable earthly care.

I have met many brave men and women, morally superior to myself, whose courage in adversity derives from their faith. But whenever they have chosen to speak or write about it, I find myself appalled by the instant decline of their intellectual and moral standards. They want god on their side and they believe they are doing his work - what is this, even at it's very best, but an extreme form of solipsism? [In other words "don't mind me I'm just doing god's work, I'm very modest." A poor syllogism, or a very humble humility, is defined by them.] They proceed from conclusion to evidence; our greatest resource is the mind, and the mind is not well-trained by being taught to assume what has to be proved.

This arrogance and illogic is inseparable even from the meekest and most altruistic religious affirmations. A true believer must believe that he or she is here for a purpose and is an object of real interest to a Supreme Being; he or she must also claim to have at least an inkling of what that Supreme Being desires. I have been called arrogant myself in my time, and hope to earn the title again, but to claim that I am privy to the secrets of the universe and its creator - that's beyond my conceit. I therefore have no choice but to find something suspect even in the humblest believer, let alone in the great law-givers and edict-makers of whose "flock" (and what a revealing word that is) they form a part.
------------------------
It might sound provincial and (oh dear) Eurocentric to say this, but not even those of us who had taken the gloomiest view of the arms race and the Cold War had ever expected to see a full-dress reprise, in Europe, of internment camps, the mass murder of civilians, the reinstitution of torture and rape and deportation as acts of policy. This was the sort of thing we had read about from six decades before; some of us (including myself) had met and got to know some survivors of that period. And of course, in a recess of our minds we had played the imaginary game: what would I do about the knock on the door; how would I react if the neighbors were being marched off to the station?

That tired analogy turned out to be uncomfortably useful, because when all this ghastliness did get under way again, the political class in Europe and America behaved for the most part with the same wretched combination of complacency and complicity that it had exhibited when Fascism first came to call.
------

Here is one example. I do know that there are also a few more writers out there that are self-described, some not, ant-theists. Hopefully, this is the exact kind of thing you are looking for @hpqp . I'm just not terribly sure their ferocity over this right now is the right call. But, as I point out it certainly SHOULD be expected as many people in religion have done nothing, but callously call these once only atheists the living devil, the worst people alive, plus every demonic curse that can be called upon a person. Then they went further and threatened them with bodily harm; from individual members to actual leaders amongst these communities. Your house is vandalized and disgraced, your telephones ring non-stop to the rhythm of a religious battle hymn. These are things you wouldn't expect from good natured, Christ loving, religious people. I'm sure @shinyblurry will make sure it's known that these people are not Christians (and I would agree to an extent)--the problem with using this to literally sweep the whole problem under the carpet is that there is NO lesson learned. No one is harassed by the police as they should be or the media--it becomes a living nightmare to fight these people. Soon all you have left is to move out of town. But, in Christopher Hitchins example he is simply too famous to escape this.

In reply to this comment by dag:
OK. Of course VideoSift is wildly biased. It's influenced strongly by the people who have collected here, the general makeup of the Internet -- and the ideology of its founders. As biased as it is, we want to be fair and tolerant to minority views, different cultures, religions and nationalities.

That's why what you say and do on VideoSift matters. I feel this every day. Even a simple comment upvote by me can cause real hurt. I'm sorry I upvoted DFT's comment. I honestly thought it was some good-natured banter between you two. It's hard to tell on the Internet. That's why I try to choose my words carefully. And (usually) even choose my upvotes carefully. My bad on that one.

Calling a German citizen a Nazi is also bad. I don't think you would do it at a dinner party to someone you just met. I'd ask you to leave my house. It's no more acceptable here. I read the comment that provoked your response. That was a little insensitive too, though as an American I would take that as good-natured ribbing. It's kind of funny.

Your response - and unwillingness to apologise for it - shows a lack of empathy and emotional maturity. You can definitely shout down the drainpipe here - and suitably, no one will give a shit.

I'm removing the hobble. VideoSift does not need martyrs. I'd honestly be sorry to see you go. I think you've contributed a lot to this community - but If you have to go - you'll be buried at sea in a cotton shroud. ;-)




It's not a lack of empathy. I think it's the other way around when people team up on the minorities of this site. They probably know full well how it feels to be alienated in real life, but online they tend to forget that and bully those with ideological differences. I've done it on here, but I've certainly tried to grow and change. I'm not perfect by a longshot, but empathy is something I definitely have in spades. If you knew me personally you'd probably agree.

But the bias is strong on this site and very much accepted. That's why it's hard for me to feel a sincere desire to apologize. Because I'm not sorry. I thought I was and even tried to apologize, but I just looked at his member page and thought about how one-sided this place can be. If you want to label that as emotional immaturity, that's your right. But I don't feel that way. At least not right now.

Things people do on here do matter. I'm glad what I said mattered. And I'll continue to say things that matter as long as the things other people say don't. Cheers.

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

OK. Of course VideoSift is wildly biased. It's influenced strongly by the people who have collected here, the general makeup of the Internet -- and the ideology of its founders. As biased as it is, we want to be fair and tolerant to minority views, different cultures, religions and nationalities.

That's why what you say and do on VideoSift matters. I feel this every day. Even a simple comment upvote by me can cause real hurt. I'm sorry I upvoted DFT's comment. I honestly thought it was some good-natured banter between you two. It's hard to tell on the Internet. That's why I try to choose my words carefully. And (usually) even choose my upvotes carefully. My bad on that one.

Calling a German citizen a Nazi is also bad. I don't think you would do it at a dinner party to someone you just met. I'd ask you to leave my house. It's no more acceptable here. I read the comment that provoked your response. That was a little insensitive too, though as an American I would take that as good-natured ribbing. It's kind of funny.

Your response - and unwillingness to apologise for it - shows a lack of empathy and emotional maturity. You can definitely shout down the drainpipe here - and suitably, no one will give a shit.

I'm removing the hobble. VideoSift does not need martyrs. I'd honestly be sorry to see you go. I think you've contributed a lot to this community - but If you have to go - you'll be buried at sea in a cotton shroud. ;-)

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Okay, now that I'm able to properly respond...

I'm leaving the Sift for a week to take care of personal things, but I needed to bring this up. There's a bias on this site. Not that I don't rub people the wrong way, because I do. I can be a huge asshole, and I don't like it sometimes. But there's a total bias and it's bullshit. I've noticed people who get targeted are those in opposition to a certain ideological position. Specifically the left. And at one point I was part of the bandwagon. Look at the recent hobblings and bannings. Those in the majority band together and pick on people all the time, but let one person on the other side make a colorful comment and all the sanctimonious assholes come out of the woodwork to play the victim. Their mean comments get upvotes and praises. Ours get us hobbled or banned.

And my comment, which I refuse to apologize over because IMO wasn't that terrible and probably fitting, wasn't unprovoked. I'm no nationalist, but he (as always) mocked the culture of the US in this comment. It didn't bother me as much as my comment bothered him, but so what? In a not-so-subtle way I was cluing him into his nation's recent culture. Of killing Jews. Which is what Germany did within the last century. People shouldn't throw stones in glass houses, that's all. If he wants to play the nationalist card, then let him be a big boy about it. They may not like their recent "culture" but I don't particularly like ours either. But then again I'm not being a Nazi about others mentioning it.

Anyway, people have said a lot fucking worse on here than my trite and stupid comment. And I've had worse said at me. And who cares? I'm okay with it. DFT wants to spin a narrative about my film, taking personal shots at me, label me a narcissist. No problem. You even upvoted that comment. Volumptuous wants to call people jerks. Great. The world keeps turning. You don't have to lift the hobbling. I'll display it as a dirty reminder. Because although I do believe you try to be fair, I don't think you are at all. It's like Nazi Germany in here. Hail Siftler.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Calling a German citizen a Nazi without provocation is at best a supreme example of Godwin's rule - and at worst deeply insulting and insensitive.

Things you do and say on VideoSift matter. I refuse to let this place become an anonymous nihilistic drainpipe you can holler down. This is your official, non-expiring warning for a personal attack - and an apology might be in order.

that's 7 years away though, and works almost exclusively in infrared. In fact the shortest wavelength it can detect is red, and that's the color with the longest wavelength, so from what I can tell it wont take very good natural color images of pretty galaxies. I imagine the scientists will be able to create spectacular virtual images from the data though.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Eh... it's no James Webb...

If you thought I was joking, then I do not need to change a thing.>> ^Ryjkyj:

Don't worry GDGD, you are not alone. I too was surprised to learn that not every single living Canadian citizen is courteous and good-natured to a fault. How embarrassing.
Thank god we have a community of worldly and generous sifters. How fortunate for us that they so freely share their great wisdom regarding the distant cultures of others and their oft mysterious ways.
I almost thought you were joking when I read the title of the video. You might want to change it lest someone get the impression that you are racist against Canadians.

Don't worry GDGD, you are not alone. I too was surprised to learn that not every single living Canadian citizen is courteous and good-natured to a fault. How embarrassing.

Thank god we have a community of worldly and generous sifters. How fortunate for us that they so freely share their great wisdom regarding the distant cultures of others and their oft mysterious ways.

I almost thought you were joking when I read the title of the video. You might want to change it lest someone get the impression that you are racist against Canadians.

You woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning didn't you - You just may need a fresh glass of OJ to pull out of that stupor I for one, *promote the acceptance of some good natured nerd-humor and enjoy the fun to which he and the audience are having

>> ^jmzero:


So, to do "nerd" humor the plan is to avoid anything actually nerdy. Stick to the most often recycled bits of pop culture and pop science, mix in some clumsy, senseless double entendres so that people know when to laugh, and you're good to go.

@blankfist, aren't you the teensiest bit ashamed of taking advantage of enoch's good nature?

Although I do see that you bought him some power points. So that softie, kitty loving heart of yours still beats.

I just can't stay mad at you. Dagnab it.

Unless the troll is blankfist. Then there is no hope for him.

Ha.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
hehe..i no prob.
i am a huuuuge voting machine.
some people view their votes as sacred.
i do not and i waste faaar too much time watching videos (when i should be doing something constructive)

as for PV being a troll.
well..you may be correct in that assumption but the way i see it everyone deserves a first chance..
the benefit of the doubt.
he may be exactly what you..and others..are saying and that will be revealed in due time.
people can never suppress their true nature for long.
that being said,i helped PV because i wished to and for no other reason than that.
what he chooses to do with my assistance is up to him and holds no bearing on who or what i am.
my feelings will not be hurt nor will i take whatever choices he makes (be they positive or crappy) personally.

if he chooses to disregard the offers of help and friendship that is on him and bears no reflection on me.
i took the time because i wished to.
if he squanders the good intentions of those on the sift then he will bear that mark.
but.....
he may also choose a different way...a better way..and maybe that new way will be in large part due to the good intentions and good natured people here on the sift.
thats worth a little time and withholding judgement is it not?

Dear Progressive,

There is some thought that you are a "troll" - someone who is poking fun at the Sift community.

I think that might be true, myself. So I am disinclined to answer any of the increasingly [fill in the blank] questions that you are posing in the Sift Talk.

I find it odd that you had the ability to do a Sift Talk but don't have any other basic knowledge of how the site runs.

In addition, it is pretty rude to ignore posts on your personal page.

So I am bowing out of what I perceive to be a charade. I don't like having my good nature played upon -- and even if you aren't a troll, to be ignored on any attempt to engage outside the sift talk.

So good luck in your endeavors. Hope the family is doing well, all those family members who have learned so much here.

Sincerely,

bb2

I know we'd really like to believe this but I can't find anything about this on any serious website, and I think if it was real, there would be more news on it.
Upon looking, while I did find many sites picking up the story using the exact same article as every other one, I did come across this one site and article. It's the only one I could find that clearly states this truly is a hoax and I couldn't find any information backing up a hoax confession by David Salmanin so I guess it's still open to personal interpretation:

"On April 1st a story broke that a botanist had discovered an incredible species that appeared to have come from an extraterrestrial source. The new species not only had the characteristics of a more traditional form of cactus, but also a few others that led one botanist to believe it was from outer space. Of course when he said he first discovered the plant in Roswell, New Mexico from a meteorite the paranormal community was already beginning to get skeptical. But all lingering doubts were removed with the prankster came clean shortly afterward and said his cactus story had been a big prank to raise awareness of cacti.

David Salman, of High County Gardens first developed the prank to air footage of a known terrestrial species of alien cactus as a more deliberate and unusual brand of alien invader which he named Ariocarpus extraterrestrialensis. Ariocarpus was chosen as the creatures did resemble a terrestrial form of cactus species going by that name, and extraterrestrialensisafter his belief that the strange plants had actually originated among the stars. But thins have been quickly developed into a far more elaborate prank than Salman likely had hoped for as a good natured bit of fun. And when your life's work includes studying cacti in the desert, you're familiar with your work resulting in a few jabs. Luckily, however, Salman was able to come clean long before the story got too out of control." - http://www.unexplainable.net/UFO-Alien/Alien-Cactus-Story-an-April-Spoof.shtml

@WKB

True, but when the Columbine school shooting was perpetrated, conservatives were quick to point the finger at Marilyn Manson's lyrics. I'm not saying they were right, and I'm not saying that Fox deserves all of the blame here either.

I do think though, that the people pumping that kind of rhetoric onto the airwaves deserve SOME responsibility for atrocities like this. Allow me to compare the Woodstock of 1970 to the Woodstock of '99 for an example.

-------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>The 1970 Woodstock (billed as "3 days of Peace and Music") resulted in reports like this:

"The New York Times covered the prelude to the festival and the move from Wallkill to Bethel.[13] Barnard Collier, who reported from the event for the Times, asserts that he was pressured by on-duty editors at the paper to write a misleadingly negative article about the event. According to Collier, this led to acrimonious discussions and his threat to refuse to write the article until the paper's executive editor, James Reston, agreed to let him write the article as he saw fit. The eventual article dealt with issues of traffic jams and minor lawbreaking, but went on to emphasize cooperation, generosity, and the good nature of the festival goers.

When the festival was over, Collier wrote another article about the exodus of fans from the festival site and the lack of violence at the event. The chief medical officer for the event and several local residents were quoted as praising the festival goers."

--------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>The 1999 version of the event (featuring bands like Metallica, Rage Against the Machine, Korn, Limp Bizkit, Kid Rock and the Red Hot Chili Peppers who are all, dare I say, a bit angrier [lyrically speaking] than the likes of Arlo Guthrie or Joan Baez) is painted in a much different color:

"Some crowd violence and looting was reported during the Saturday night performance by Limp Bizkit, including a rendition of the song "Break Stuff". Reviewers of the concert criticized Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst as "irresponsible" for encouraging the crowd to destructive behavior.

Violence escalated the next night during the final hours of the concert as Red Hot Chili Peppers performed. A group of peace promoters led by an independent group called Pax had distributed candles to those stopping at their booth during the day, intending them for a candlelight vigil to be held during the Red Hot Chili Peppers' performance of the song "Under the Bridge". During the band's set, the crowd began to light the candles, some also using them to start bonfires. The hundreds of empty plastic water bottles that littered the lawn/dance area were used as fuel for the fire.

After the Red Hot Chili Peppers were finished with their main set, the audience was informed about "a bit of a problem." An audio tower caught fire, and the fire department was called in to extinguish it.

Back onstage for an encore, the Chili Peppers' lead singer Anthony Kiedis remarked how amazing the fires looked from the stage, comparing them to a scene in the film Apocalypse Now.[12] The band proceeded to play "Sir Psycho Sexy", followed by their rendition of Jimi Hendrix's "Fire". Kiedis later stated in his autobiography, Scar Tissue that Jimi Hendrix's sister had asked the Chili Peppers to play "Fire" in honor of Jimi and his performance at the original Woodstock festival, and that they were not playing it to encourage the crowd.

Many large bonfires were burning high before the band left the stage for the last time. Participants danced in circles around the fires. Looking for more fuel, some tore off panels of plywood from the supposedly inviolable security perimeter fence. ATMs were tipped over and broken into, trailers full of merchandise and equipment were forced open and burglarized, and abandoned vendor booths were turned over, and set afire.[13]

MTV, which had been providing live coverage, removed its entire crew. MTV host Kurt Loder described the scene in the July 27, 1999 issue of USA Today:

"It was dangerous to be around. The whole scene was scary. There were just waves of hatred bouncing around the place, (...) It was clear we had to get out of there.... It was like a concentration camp. To get in, you get frisked to make sure you're not bringing in any water or food that would prevent you from buying from their outrageously priced booths. You wallow around in garbage and human waste. There was a palpable mood of anger."

After some time, a large force of New York State Troopers, local police, and various other law enforcement arrived. Most had crowd control gear and proceeded to form a riot-line that flushed the crowd to the northwest, away from the stage located at the eastern end of the airfield. Few of the crowd offered strong resistance and they dispersed quickly back toward the campground and out the main entrance."

>>>>>>See also, this poignant response from a person in the crowd: http://newsroom.mtv.com/2009/08/17/woodstock-legacy/ (crowdmember comments @ 2:20)

----------------------------------------

Now now easy there big fella, before you start telling me about how correlation does not imply causation consider this: an article recently published by the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that:

"Childhood exposure to parental verbal aggression was associated, by itself, with moderate to large effects on measures of dissociation, limbic irritability, depression, and anger-hostility." Furthermore, "Combined exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of domestic violence was associated with extraordinarily large adverse effects, particularly on dissociation. This finding is consonant with studies that suggest that emotional abuse may be a more important precursor of dissociation than is sexual abuse."
See: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/6/993

Maybe not the best example I could have found but I've already spent WAY too much time on this post. The point is, WORDS carry a lot of power. Even if the pundits (right OR left) never came out and said it, the implication of violence was certainly there at times.

I KNOW Fox has lead the charge of fear mongering in the name of ratings but anyone else who subscribed to that level of attack should share some of the blame as well. Again, not saying that they should take all or even a lot of the blame, but they should be responsible for the violent laced rhetoric they spout.

I say STOP THE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS and we'll see less violence against PEOPLE and (hopefully) more enthralling arguments where the IDEAS are being attacked (which I'm all for) :-)

p.s. sry for the huge post but i was on a roll

I think she's just being honest. Obviously they want to look good. Most politicians would love nothing more than to get lots of softball questions so they can launch into pre-planned talking points. And not have to risk saying something stupid on the spot, or be dragged into talking about an uncomfortable issue.

The pitch for donations was a over the top. But it's the interviewer's job to keep politicians from doing nothing but campaigning during an interview. I think she understands that adversarial relationship, and is joking with him that he should just roll over and stop trying to be a journalist. It almost comes off as good natured ribbing.