Great video. As someone pointed out in the YouTube comments, this version is censored. The uncensored version is even better and makes more sense, in my opinion: http://vimeo.com/18787662

Congratulations! Your video, Are They Naked? (this would never fly with US censors), has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 9 Badge!

Your video, Are They Naked? (this would never fly with US censors), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This sounds like damage control from RT. I think the tacit deal was, you keep some independence to say what you want and in return you answer every question about RT bias by deflecting it to the general media. She's not wrong about that, but she's clearly avoiding the question which flies in the face of her apparent independence.

I would also say that the way US media censors, (1) fitting a conservative or liberal narrative because its more profitable like MSNBC and Fox News or (2) towing the government line when it has high approval ratings, as it was leading up to the Iraq war - is different to simply being directly under the thumb of government censors.

The only thing that saved him was that it was his front foot that slipped, and not his back.

People get what they deserve, and I'm pretty sure there are dozens of epic failed jumps out there, but they'd get censored due to their snuff status.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Mordhaus.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Payback. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Censored-11-year-old-Aidan-Fisher-with-Steel-Panther

Ant beat you by a couple weeks. "Steel Panther" should have popped it up... *shrugs* |,,| qo,Op |,,|

Your video, ***Censored*** 11 year old Aidan Fisher with Steel Panther, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Xbox One, the world's first device that will fucking censor you in your own home

I still think that open comments on the Internet are essential. As horrible as some may be, its still better than to censor people, who are simply venting there instead of sucking it up and eventually exploding in something more horrible than a fucking few letters.
People need to get more tolerant and need to have more self esteem and also think more before bursting out into a pile of emotions. Not everyone has a nice life, not everyone can afford the things they want, not everyone had much luck in life with anything. In a fucked up society like ours, you cant fix everything, and some fixes will make it even worse.
Ignoring bad things will only make them worse. Its that simple.

I think that's because most Sifters find drive-by comments that don't show even a hint of critical thinking (I'm referring to his first post) more egregious than posts by racists, homophobes, or religious zealots who at last make a token effort to provide support for their own views (no matter how flawed that support may be).

BTW, it took me longer to write the above than to think about it. Yes, I am proud of myself.

Maybe we could have a little less drama and a little more reasonable argument from your posts on this topic? You know that people on the Sift will comment on shit like this (i.e. "censorship"/bias on the Sift in the form of downvotes) forever... if it doesn't look like they're going to get drawn into a flame war in the process.

All I'm saying is that the tone comes off as confrontational. Two commenters above me have already self-censored responses to you pretty much for that very reason. If your goal is to get people to think seriously about this topic, then you'll probably need to change the way you post about it. Of course, if your goal is to troll or sit on your high horse and let the rest of us know how bad our shit stinks then please let me know now so I can put you on my ignore list.

Ideology and Insanity are not mutually dependent.

You can have :
Sane Ideology
Insane Ideology
Sane non-Ideology
Insane non-Ideology

The principles of an individual can be constructive or destructive, whether or not they are part of an ideology.
What matters is the specific principles, and not whether or not they are associated with an ideology.

As individuals, we have animal impulses.
These include :
- Feeling combative in the presence of a verbal threat or insult.
- Feeling combative (inclined to silence/sensor) in the presence of ideas that are at odds with one's own.
- Feeling impulse to take shortcuts to reward (eg. stealing money fast vs earning money slow).

Ideology helps to fix these things.
This includes :
- Personal feelings don't take precedence over other people's physical condition.
Words are only words, actions are what makes a tangible measurable difference. We are masters of our own emotions, only ourselves can be blamed for our happiness or malcontent.

- Inherent equality of individuals. Ideas out in the open can live or die by their own merit as determined by all people. Censoring is taking privilege over other people by predetermining for them what ideas they are allowed to consider.

- Respect for domain. Doing as we like with what is ours, and not affecting what belongs to others.


"The moon does not care" (TM).
Nothing is intrinsically universal.

There are worldly concepts native to life on earth (protecting one's children, guarding one's domain, suffering/pain response, etc), but the higher order concept of "Idea X is _unacceptable_" is a purely human invented "meta" issue.



Sanity is Rationality is Logic ... which in turn is the ability to find a path from state A to state B.

For example:
[Given A=alive]
If your desire is to survive (B=alive), then eating poison is illogical.
It would be insane then to eat poison, as it would not be a path from A to B.
But if your desire is to die (B=dead), then eating poison is logical.
It would be sane to eat poison, as it would be a path from A to B.

Point being, people like to view the world with their own goals in mind.
Given that other people invariably have different goals in mind, the judgment of sane or insane becomes relative ... that's not "just words", that's quite real.
If a miserable person with a painful disease eats poison, is it logical for a healthy happy individual to say "that's insane"?



Much of our body politic is the projection of a subset of people's standards onto a larger population, with disregard for the other people.

At this point, politically, we are mired in populism, and we lack ideology - even though we were handed a pretty good one at the beginning.

Instead of having some guiding concepts that we use to restrain emotional impulses, we [as a society] fly off chasing populist agendas fed to us by our "team" (party) of choice.

Ironically, often rooting for a position that we are at odds with. (eg. "I hate the Affordable Care Act" even though "I like having coverage for pre-existing conditions")

The constitution does a good job at laying down the rules for an equitable relationship between government and people, but it's practically a dead document these days.
Elected officials neglect their obligation to represent and instead fashion themselves as leaders.
Lawmakers pass laws in violation of the constitution day in and day out.
Judiciary enforces lower laws that are constitutionally null.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness aren't just words. They're text from the highest law of the land.
Under such a standard, you would think that it would mean that a person would be able to lead their personal life as they please. But not as it stands.

Most of our public debate, is about whether or not people should "allow" other people to do things with themselves or other consenting individuals.
"Allowing(y/n)" people to do drugs [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to have firearms [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to marry [while not involving others].
etc.

With the main objections being "I'm not physically involved, but I wouldn't do things that way if it were me, so I choose to have hurt feelings (and call that a personal involvement), and subsequently push my personal standards onto others".
It's a selfish, impulsive, capricious, predatory behavior ... lacking any meaningful ideological temperance.

-scheherazade

That's a *WTF if I've ever seen one [censored as it should be!]

[The censored version of] this video has over 47 million views on YouTube. That's incredible.

The naturally-occurring supermodel is a very rare thing. See also:

Samuel Bayer art
Treats! Magazine photos
Treats! Magazine shoot
Treats! Magazine Behind the Scenes

(Naturally this artsy stuff passes dagwood's test.)