You don't want a vaccine? Lovely. We will be canceling your health insurance. Since you've chosen to be a complete cunt, we've chosen not to pay for your utter cuntiness.

I work in health insurance. The three biggest contributors to the price of insurance are:
1: fraud (doctors are notorious for this)
2: general waste (upbilling; unnecessary tests that are only performed to keep the fucking ambulance-chasing lawyers from filing malpractice suits because someone got the shits from an antibiotic)
3: PREVENTABLE HEALTH ISSUES. This includes obesity, smoking, not exercising, not getting annual checkups and atrocious dietary habits as first-order issues. If not corrected, these lead to more expensive and longer term second-order issues: diabetes, heart disease, cancer, vascular disease. These issues start a feedback loop with the second-order effects cause immobility which contributes to increasing first-order effects which amplifies second-order effects -- lather, rinse, repeat.

Now add a good case of Covid to that mix. If you end up on a ventilator for two week, there's a mil-plus in hospital bills: someone has to either pay that (welcome higher insurance rates!) or the hospital has to eat it (welcome even HIGHER insurance rates!) You can bitch all you want about the cost of healthcare in America, but you're paying for every dumb, entitled asshole who spouts shit like MUH FREEDUMS!! when asked to do basic things to protect themselves and others.

tl;dr: your idiot views of what the actual fuck "freedom" is ends at my wallet. Fuck you and get your goddamn vaccine. And put down the Cheetos while you're at it.

Totally agree with all the wtf sentiments.

I'd never prank my kids like this, and I think it's bad for them in general.

However...

1. I do enjoy the clips where kids are really sweet and generous with responses like "It's totally okay. I don't mind." and "I hope you didn't get a tummy ache." These are the types of kids where they seem to be getting good parenting otherwise (and seem to lack lowlife genes).

2. For the other dipshit kids with atrocious responses, I feel like they respond with selfish toxicity and disgust because they're already probably being raised that way, so this prank is just par for the course.

---

Weird flex I know, but fwiw my kids don't eat their Halloween candy, and they donate their haul at the dentist to send the junk to our troops.

(My kids don't eat candy in general, but if we, their parents, did tell them we'd eaten something they wanted, they'd respond with hearts full of happiness hoping we enjoyed it. My boys are wonderful. ❤️)

I can't find it. Must have absolutely atrocious title and keywords.

Mr. Rogers understood children deal with every aspect of this world and dialog is the best way to help them understand and cope with issues no matter how good or atrocious.

A Mitt Romney fan, eh? You should probably read this article, which absolutely guts the myth that only half of income earners pay taxes.

As far as the top 1% paying 40% of the taxes, I agree that is atrocious--they are supposed to be paying almost ALL of it! See, when the income tax was introduced with the 16th Amendment, it was primarily meant to be a tax on the rich. The federal tax rate for middle-class people was meant to be around 1-2% whereas the tax rate on the rich was around 7%. You can see the original 1913 tax form here.

Of course, since literally the income tax's inception, the federal government has continuously been shafting the middle classes while reducing the tax burden of the wealthy. It's about as American as apple pie by this point!

The big problem is that the government relies more and more on income tax to fund federal projects. Take a look at the graph in the article I linked to at the start of this comment and note how corporate taxes keep going down while income and payroll taxes keep going up.

It doesn't help at all that most of America's biggest businesses have offshore tax havens where they can avoid paying taxes (think Ireland for Apple, Inc., though that hasn't worked out so well for them thanks to the EU being less corporate cock-sucking than the U.S. government).

So, to solve America's tax deficit problem, the solution is pretty clear--tax rich people more (as was intended), tax corporations more and cut off their tax havens, and maybe give a tax break to the people who actually need and deserve it--the middle and lower classes.

But of course all of that sounds suspiciously like socialism, which as we all know is the devil incarnate and about as un-American as naming your kid Stalin.

So they learned nothing from Ghostbusters.
Looks atrocious.

Want to cut down the number of deaths by firearms? Stop tolerating shit like this:

"Shane Patrick Boyle, a founder of Zine Fest Houston, died on March 18 after his GoFundMe campaign to pay for insulin came up $50 short. Alec Raeshawn Smith, age 26, was found dead in his apartment on June 27. He was rationing his insulin after he aged out of his parent’s insurance coverage."

After everything is said and done, desperation/poverty is what should be looked at the hardest. Nothing makes people go apeshit as much as intolerable living conditions.

Universal background checks, bans on high cap mags, etc -- that's just doctoring around the edges. Get the Works Progress Administration going again. And while you're at it, revive the CCC and the PWA as well.

Aside from atrocious working hours and societal pressures, life in Japan is a lot less desperate than in most other countries. The low unemployment alone does wonders.

The Matrix is my Star Wars. Green tinted nostalgia has me looking back upon even the sequels and the atrocious video game tie-ins favourably.

Agreed. Both atrocious, derivative and soulless corporate comittee jobs IMHO.
Also what's with "at least they have female protagonists which is good"? When did every action sci fi have to feature an 8 stone girl beating up groups of 18 stone professional mercenaries like they're nothing? I mean why not just fly or shoot lasers from your fingers if physics means so little?

Oof. That fight scene in the beginning was atrocious. I've seen B-grade movies with better fight scenes. Either Charlize can't "fight" for shit or the director/choreographer needs to be fired.

Meh. Looks pretty corny and forgettable all over actually.

That's a convenient, but likely baseless claim. Do you have any peer reviewed studies to back it up?
It's the same thing that allows it in every religion. Immoral people assume leadership positions and instruct faithful to act atrociously. Christianity was just as inhumane, the phrase isn't "nobody expects the Muslim inquisition". It's misguided to get myopic about history in order to demonize one religion, they all fall into this pitfall, it's the nature of blind faith that it's easily abused.
A good question might be what is it about religion that it makes normal people act as if they have mental issues, and I think I just answered that.
Looking at the issue honestly, not biased against "them", is essential. It allows you to ask "did my culture find a way to stop this behavior, and if so, how." Since no culture seems 100% free from it, pointing fingers isn't helpful. Since it's true that they aren't the only ones to "be bad", how is it dishonest? What fact does it ignore?
The left is not the factually challenged side of the two. The left believes science, the right doesn't. Issue settled.

Questionable parenting, atrocious animal ownership.

What exactly did Scalia do that is so horrible people feel the need to shit on him after he is dead? Serious question. Because, from what I can tell from the comments on the Internet, it consists mostly of "I didn't agree with what he said so he should burn in hell."

Fuck that noise. That's partisan bullshit, the same kind the Republicans are pulling now (saying they won't allow any legislation to pass until Obama is out of office).

The man was a human being. He was a brilliant legal scholar. He viewed the law from a particular perspective and stayed true to that perspective until the very end. No, I don't agree with a lot of the arguments he made, but I do agree with some of them, like the argument that video games are a form of speech protected by the Constitution (read the majority ruling that he wrote for that case, it is brilliant).

As has been pointed out, he couldn't do jack shit without getting a majority opinion from the other justices on the court. And I've never read a legal opinion of his that wasn't grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the law. I don't need to agree with his interpretations to recognize them valid.

So again I ask, what did he do that was so atrocious that it warrants the hatred that's being direct at him. If it were Donald Rumsfeld or George Bush Jr., people who can (and should) be seen as directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, maybe I could understand the vitriol.

I agree, but I think Scalia stands out for the truly atrocious things he's said in the media, hence more vocal hate.
At the same time, he could have just been drawing the media, or a scapegoat all along, because for all I know those 4 other judges agreeing with him could have said equally as terrible things that didn't reach the general populace.

@lucky760 @newtboy

Censorship according to the internet: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

I see public internet communication as a constantly published work of the human intellect, therefore all digitally published and public communication is media and therefore subject to censorship -- and Videosift now offers a form of individual censorship to its members, not simply the acceptable ignore feature which allows you to check the communication if you so desire.

It bothers me that people would completely block out other people's published work -- and not just their published work but their very existence -- for the same reason that it bothers me that people ban books I don't read at libraries. Mein Kampf is still a book, a poorly written book which glorifies hatred, but still an important part of human literature.

You can choose not to read it, but you can't censor it's existence from reality. Not without burning every copy and then erasing every digital copy. Though perhaps in the future an algorithm will be available which does something similar on an account wide level, visually removing all unfavorable literature and blocking people's facial features, making it so that that person and their communication might as well not exist. But I wouldn't want it to be nullified from my vision while walking through a library, anymore than I would want to nullify a person's existence who offends me; and by extension I believe the freedom to exist and to be acknowledged is an important freedom that we take for granted. You should NOT be able to remove someone from your personal existence. Yes, there are laws in place to do this, but they require criminal abuse to come into effect.

There are greater implications of this type of censorship, that perhaps do not apply directly to the Sift in it's short temporal existence and small community. But it's still an offence to my sense of justice in the realm of communication that such a thing is possible. Even the < ahref="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algorithm-predicts-trolls-antisocial-behaviour">troll algorithm isn't intended to ban or censor trolls outright, but rather to detect problematic people and find a way to limit the harm they do to a community without removing them from a community.

I think it's one thing if you want to prevent someone from posting on your profile -- which is what should actually be an option (if it isn't already) -- but to silence their voice in video comments is a high form of censorship that I fundamentally stand against. I quite enjoyed some of what Chilngalera had to say; not always and often he offended me -- but not enough to desire to remove him from my existence. I don't think anyone except violent/sexual offenders deserve that. If he vocalizedd violence and sexual threats, why would he still be in the community at all? And if he's banned, why do you need to have an option to block out people's existence?

I was employed for many years to police several massive online roleplaying games, and an ignore feature was a widely accepted form of preventing harassment -- but when it came to erasing the person's avatar or their character's physical body from the game, we always voted against such outright blotting out of a human being. Our rational was and is to this day that if the person cannot communicate to you via explicit words, their presence is an acceptable form of nonverbal communication and a reminder that they are a human being in the community, even if verbally hobbled -- because at that point they have no means of articulating hurtful words.

But to erase that person's presence is a greater act against both the human spirit and human expression as to be a reprehensible act in an of itself. Unless they commit such atrocious behavior in the form of real life physical threats of violence, constant racial/sexual slurs (in a bucket system of soft banning leading up to a permanent ban) or other forms of insidiousness, preserving their humanity is more important to a community than erasing another human being.