Speaking up does not do nothing.

Sometimes reasonable people make mistakes, and when shown the error of their ways, they change.

This is not the case here. Here, a race baiting video is posted by someone with a clear history of racist posts, thoughts, language, and who gives other racists his full support. That must be denounced strongly or others who are like minded or just ignorant might feel emboldened to repeat the racism....as Bob did, repeating the racist comments from YouTube, thinking the sarcasm button shields him from repercussions.

What does nothing is remaining silent or worse, defending the thinly veiled racism. Both of those actions, like ignoring measles or kudzu, allows it to spread and gain traction elsewhere until it's intractable. Nip it in the bud every single time is the only method that helps.


Btw, imo it's a better plan to find that homeless person and buy them a meal, or socks. Take them in a store (or restaurant if they're presentable enough to not bother other patrons), let them buy what they want or need, and pay for it. Yes, you have to interact with them longer and not just drop a bill to feel good about yourself, but the results are much better, and your gift won't be stolen by others or used for drugs. Those just looking for drug money will usually refuse the offer in my experience.

I say that it's impossible to say that Trump is much worse or more evil....but you can make the assertion that his STATED PLANS are much worse than her STATED PLANS. It's important to note, however, that neither of them are at all likely to stick with anything they've said so far. Trump has already come out and said to ignore the entire primary season, it was all bluster and hyperbole to get him the nomination, and Clinton has a clear history of changing her position at the slightest breeze. Now we get a second season of different bluster and hyperbole (from both sides) to try for the presidency. Only once they're in office will we have any idea what they really plan on doing with their power. Neither Trump or Clinton have a record of consistency, so comparing them is impossible until after the fact.

The reason you don't see other candidates is that the primaries aren't over. Only the Democrats and Republicans play this game of 'the race is over...don't go vote, it won't matter' before the vote is over, even mathematically (which it still is not, BTW, contrary to your assertion. It is POSSIBLE, however unlikely, that Sanders could win despite the super delegates being in Clinton's pockets and the fix being in by the DNC, with only California's delegates, but they've duped you like millions of others into thinking it's been over for months now, and Clinton is our only remaining choice, and supporting Sanders now is like a vote for Trump, which is outrageously insulting BS).
Because Sanders has ALWAYS polled better than Clinton against Trump, if it's really a fear of yours that we might elect Trump, you should all be shouting at everyone possible to vote for Sanders on June 7th (EDIT: and warn them to not allow the poll workers to give them a provisional ballot which aren't counted, but insist on a democratic crossover ballot which will be). Clinton VS Trump is at best a toss up at this point (and she's not even indicted yet), Sanders VS Trump is consistently a landslide for Sanders. Just DUH, people. It's like...come on.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'google, personification, brian huskey, questions, deep web, clear history' to 'google, personification, brian huskey, deep web, clear history, mark mcgrath' - edited by xxovercastxx

I went to lower and middle school in Texas, private and public. In public school I was paddled with the 'board of education' for refusing to say there was no such thing as a negative number in 5th grade. (private school had taught me that there certainly WAS such a thing by that point, but no one had taught my 5th grade teacher).
This is a great reason for other states to ignore Texas when purchasing text books, their board of miss-education has a clear history of ignoring or re-writing history, science, and (from my experience) even math!
When the board is populated mostly (or solely) with people that don't believe in public education, you end up with books and teaching methods designed to prove that point rather than teach. That's not a method others should emulate.

>> ^gwiz665:
>> ^Eklek:
In general I'm in favour of more clear banning rules..often a set of relatively small words/actions that are borderline legal etc. lead to a heavier emotional and clearly illegal response in actions/words. Before that happens things need to be settled between the parties concerned and it should be made clear that a small violation (related to that particular case) leads to a (temporary) ban of the violating party (Cf. this to being on parole or a yellow card. The red card would be a temporary ban)..

If anchorman taught me anything, and it did, then it's that things can escalate really fast. We need to be careful not to just ban left and right if two parties get each other riled up into a frenzy. However, this was not just a crime of passion. It was very deliberate, as berticus' own comment indicated. Therefore I don't think he should get a wag of the finger, but rather a slap on the wrist. The rules were knowingly broken several times (or several places in one spree). And he acted out of spite towards a single user. I think the 2 week suspension is warranted.
I don't expect to see any of this from him again, since it was clearly directed at another user who is not here anymore, but that is not a good reason to be lenient. "I won't kill my mother-in-law twice" won't get you out of jail.
In theory I'm for at much clearer ruleset too, but in practice I think it will invite certain users to "play the system" and ride out a yellow card, and get another yellow card afterwards, such the the user could calculate when he could make a minor infraction again - it's a bad solution to keep the cards hanging forever, but it's also a bad solution to let them be removed over time. This is why I think the fact that our rules are open to a bit of interpretation is in order, because we are a reasonable community (and have reasonable admins), we can decide when a user is deliberately breaking the system, like cp420 was, and when we should be lenient (like the schamwy incident should have been). If we make the rules too precise, then we invite way to many rules lawyers, who will want to impose the rules over the will of the community and admins, and this is a bad thing™. We must have some wiggle room, because we are dealing with people, not machines.


Thanks for your reply:)
As I mentioned this particular incident had a clear history, for all of us to see (sifttalk, comments)..it indeed escalated quickly but what happened can not be called surprising..

I think a sort of yellow card indication would generally make users more careful, they know if they do not play by the rules they will be (temporarily) banned and other users know he user has not played by the rules...like in sports the yellow card is for a certain period of time and what concerns a yellow card offense would be considered case-by-case by the community (jury)/admins.
One could also add a section in the user profile where offenses are documented (just like they do with sports people or e.g. at ebay (customer satisfaction rating)).
I think a little bit more complexity/rules will improve user behaviour..free speech/behaviour has a certain limit.

>> ^Deano:
This is pretty much what I'm saying though I disagree about the value of a "dupe pool". I think the listing would be useful as simply flagging individual videos doesn't provide a context to list dupes or provide a forum for discussion.
This should make it easier for diamonds to do the dupeof invocation as the case for merging the videos will have been clearly made and you retain a clear history of what happened.


I still don't understand what benefit 100-star members and below will have from this section dedicated to dupes? The listing part, as I mentioned, can be done in a simpler way. As far as discussions are concerned: The only discussions concerning dupes are the "dupe or no dupe" ones and they fit perfectly into the comment section of the videos in question.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
You're right in saying that this dupe problem needs a solution, but I don't see the benefit of a showcase "dead pool" for dupes, especially since that place would only be useful to those who can invoke the dupeof invocation. Instead I'd suggest that every member (or x starpoints and above) gets the power to mark a video as a dupe of another video (It could say something like "This video has been marked as a dupe of _link to original_" on the dupe's page).
In addition, 250ers and above could have a link in their profile page (or somewhere else) that'll give them a listing of all the videos that have been marked as dupes.



This is pretty much what I'm saying though I disagree about the value of a "dupe pool". I think the listing *would* be useful as simply flagging individual videos doesn't provide a context to list dupes or provide a forum for discussion.
This should make it easier for diamonds to do the dupeof invocation as the case for merging the videos will have been clearly made and you retain a clear history of what happened.