FYI, this is explicitly allowed. See this excerpt from our Posting Guidelines:

Exempt from our self-link definition is an embed that is supplied to another member's post when fixing a Dead Pool video or adding a *backup embed (see star powers). Bear in mind that this exemption does not apply to your own posts.

It is hinted at but not explicitly stated, but isn't possible that early birds are also more optimistic, proactive, etc. because their genetically predisposed sleep pattern lines up with the artificial timeframes set up by society? Are they basically getting a pat on the back by society for conforming to its needs?

For example, are early birds more depressed/less proactive in Spain where the average workday starts sometime between 10 and 11 am and ends close to 8 pm? Wouldn't they then suffer from the same "social jetlag"?

Explicitly one of the cases for which hobbling was specifically created.

Your videos are no longer just yours, but for the entire community to enjoy. Your "cleaning house" hurts the sift by removing lots of content that was good enough to get published.

Let's holler for @dag and get his input.

That's our old IP and by old I mean from ~2 months ago. You can either 1) change your DNS servers to point at something like Google's public DNS servers (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) or 2) update your "hosts" file to explicitly override the domain's IP.

(You may also want to first try flushing your DNS just in case it happens to be your computer's DNS cache that's at issue, which I'm guessing it probably isn't.)

99 Problems (Explicit Political Remix) has been added as a related post - related requested by Norsuelefantti.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/99-Problems-Explicit-Political-Remix

It would be more correct to consider religion one of many paths leading away from enlightenment than secularism as one leading toward it. That would usefully sidestep the sophistry involved in the rebranding of oppressive but secular ideologies as a special kind of religion. Secularists don't need to account for the actions of other secularists any more than people who aren't thieves need to answer for arsons committed by other non-thieves. Muslims, conversely, have signed up for a particular club with a particular set of club rules and practices; they are accountable.

Islam is a homogeneous whole, as much as a global movement can be. Its foundational text is intact and whole, not arbitrarily selected from masses of contradictory documents of dubious provenance. That text explicitly rejects the possibility of interpretation or allegory and there's an established, foolproof mechanism for resolving contradictions. It has a single author, really a single author rather than the fiction of the will of god being channelled through the accounts of various liars, a single founder, and a single exemplar.

The popular view of islam as "a religion that is as varied as any other in the world" is unarguably born from ignorance. It's about as variable as scientology, and substantially less reputable.

The witnesses? The only witness that vaguely supports this that I've seen is an anonymous witness cited in the Daily Caller. Not credible journalism even by USA standards. The known witnesses are Dorian Johnson (altercation at the car, shooting as he ran away, he got hit, turned around put his hands up and stumbled forwards before the shooting began again), James McKnight (more or less the same as Johnson), Michael Brady (altercation at car, shooting, then as Brown was halfway towards falling to the ground more shots), Piaget Crenshaw (shots fired as he ran away with hands up, turned with hands up, more firing). Those accounts aren't too far from the Police account really. Is it reasonable to conclude deadly force is required in the timeframe of the shooting? What does police protocol say? One step? Two? When can you be sure it's not charging but belligerence, drunkenness, or injury? I'm sure America are the experts in these cases by now and have explicit and clear guidelines for semi-autonomous itinerant armed police officers and when they can and cannot open fire. Surely it isn't just 'if you harbour any fear, kill or otherwise incapacitate the citizen you are trying to apprehend'?

There is also TheePharoah who tweeted it from the scene and said ' JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE OMFG....no reason! He was running!', but you know, its not clear he can provide further useful information assuming he was interviewed.

I was uncomfortable with this video because I was afraid that it would be used as fuel for homophobia.

I upvoted because really, it is the most anti-homophobic thing out there. It dares to treat gay people as people. Fully, 100% people with a range of personalities.

As a woman, I wasn't offended by the "gayness" of the character, I was offended by the blatant sexual nature of his comments. All this chatter about gayness completely misses the point about what is appropriate behavior in the workplace. And in fact, all this chatter disturbs me deeply -- it is misdirection from the true "crime" here.

Equality is asking everyone to be treated EQUALLY. You don't talk about sex in the workplace like this -- not if you are gay or straight.

Having said that -- my male boss and I are completely inappropriate with each -- but NOT around anyone else. We have bawdy senses of humor and we crack each other up. As he said early on in our working relationship -- it isn't sexual harassment if it is UNWANTED sexual attention.

This guy's co-worker was plain in his language that he was uncomfortable and didn't want to hear sexually explicit stuff, and he wasn't homophobic in his comments. He was ignored. That was not okay.

The point was brought home by making him happily and openly gay and letting the chatty one have a moment of self-truth. Because yeah, he was an asshole.

Explaining comedy and social commentary is so boring.

@ChaosEngine wins the internet. He's exactly right, it's not about the orientation, it's about the overt, explicit nature. No one wants to hear about someone's sexual adventures in mixed company, straight or gay.

Hollywood, loves to fall back to a definite gay stereotype though.

Glee was actually guilty of this in the the first few seasons. Kurt, the gay character had a crush on Finn, the straight character, and not only that, they were step brothers. Kurt practically stalked Finn and was downright harassing at times. Yet Finn was portrayed as the jerk for not being "more accepting"

It's ironic, TV and movies had a large role in making America more accepting of homosexuality, but they also perpetuate some shitty stereotypes too. News flash, not all homosexuals are flaming interior decorators.

Oh and ACTUAL homophobes? You're not that good looking. Gays are actually able to restrain themselves from raping you in broad daylight. Shocking, I know.

Thanks for that! : )

Yes, you're totally right. We know people who vehemently disagree with us and almost get to the point of explicitly saying we're bad parents because... "kids like candy!" But my feelings about that argument are: So fucking what? That's your idea of good parenting, giving them whatever they enjoy even if it's obviously bad for them, just because you selfishly enjoy the smile on their face?

Kids don't need and shouldn't have everything that they might like in this world. Kids like to not go to school, and if you gave them cocaine they'd probably like that too.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

I see what you're saying, but it does more harm than good. For example, the video wraps up by saying "Somehow, we have to break this circle." While it isn't called out explicitly the implication is that "we" represents anyone other than ISIS/ISIL, etc. My contention is that "we" need to stay out of this mess; this whole region is carved up in a way that served the British empire prior to World War 2. Until the people that occupy that region have the ability to carve out their land for themselves the very circle he refers to will keep occurring.

Main point: This video serves to support an undeclared media bias towards more "intervention" and softens the public to additional western military action.

I see @lantern53 is still unable to stop thinking about gays again. I'm sure he can give us explicit details about various gay sex acts and accessories just like that guy in the video. He is so drawn to them...so irresistible eh?

...and so predictable.

You should watch the video. You seem to be making a very large presumption that it contains a message that is explicitly contradictory to its actual point.