I thought I recognized it...*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/American-Socialism-Irritable-Bowl-Syndrome

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

http://videosift.com/video/American-Socialism-Irritable-Bowl-Syndrome

It's a bit irritating how there's always a blurry animated hand dancing around the screen. Similar animations feature an actual hand of the actual animator animating, which is interesting. But in this case it just looks tacked on and hokey. Not that anyone who made it is reading, so upvote!

It's really quite annoying when you use the term "right wing loonies" or some other such rhetoric-to-incite whenever you pop spit all over similar posts, no-doubt just as annoying are advocates of sanity and less bullshit. Very sophomoric, and fucking irritating and rude....Simpleton?! How about taking a a bath in the cold waters of of the experiential gravity well?

What I have done in some cases is shown that I was pissed when they interrupted, usually vocally, which always has the opposite effect; they think I'm rude, (passive-) aggressive and irritating. Especially so if it's a discussion within a group of people.

I need a 3rd party, conversation moderator to shield me from blow-back when being vigilant.

If it's possible for a machine to look irritated, that one looks irritated. LEAVE ME ALONE!

How can we have a substantive conversation if you're not willing to put in any effort to actually understand the subject matter, either for or against? If you're content with your blind faith in whatever scientists tell you, then you're just as dogmatic as you accuse me of being. The video I provided is very good and it chronicles the history of deep time, as well as the science behind it, in exacting detail using the methodology of geologists. You could watch 10 minutes of it, and if you decided you didn't like it, you could turn it off.

As far as the paradigm shift goes, here is a quote from the father of uniformitarianism, Charles Lyell:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”

As you can plainly see, Charles was scheming to deceive the church into accepting his uniformitarian theories even though he knew they contradicted scripture. He wasn't interested in a scientific investigation of the facts:

From a lecture in King’s College London in 1832

I have always been strongly impressed with the weight of an observation of an excellent writer and skillful geologist who said that ‘for the sake of revelation as well as of science—of truth in every form—the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence

He had an agenda and his bias is plain to see. He completely excluded the testimony of scripture apriori before he even began. That is the beginning of why there was a shift in geology as the intelligentsia embraced his theories and began to teach it at Universities. There was no spectacular confirmation of any of this; in fact the evidence he gave about Niagra Falls to supprt his theory has been completely falsified.

Now I will agree that the wording of this particular poll could be better. I was irritated at the time so my bias does come out. However with the sacrifice of my pride I do feel that the inclusion of a second poll slot would enhance the sift in a meaningful way. You aren't a jerk @dag to question my motives, it is only right that you do so. I know that the promote issue is a more important one while this one seems fairly minor in comparison.

I understand that having a second option would take time and effort on your part to enable, and that sometimes one just has to trim the "fat" off of work schedules. However I will restate that I honestly believe that this will be to benefit the sift and not just my stupid polling.

"I'm going to totally promote three of my videos right now and bump all the others off (because they're really good, not getting many votes and I think they are worth promoting). I hope no one goes ahead and promotes something of theirs for at least 5-6 hours during prime time and waste the PowerPoints I've invested. That would irritate me be inconsiderate and then I'll get all pouty and mad - you wouldn't like me when I get mad."

Ya, I don't know what the solution is, but I do see problems with the new mechanics. Thanks for bringing up the topic though Dag. I know everything is new and you guys worked very hard on it so some of us are reluctant to point out glaring oddities just yet. This is one I noticed right away.

Definitely, I feel like they look like paid ads. Definitely, they don't look more important than those in the listings. I don't feel like they are special so I don't feel the need to click on them - in fact, I keep forgetting what they are and skip over them most the time. It's become an intuitive decision to skip over the ads at the top of websites which is what these look like.

As has been mentioned, and I agree, these "featured" videos have been stripped of all identity that would engage me and encourage me to watch them (tags, description, how new/old it is, how many views it's had.) This makes it heavily reliable on the thumbnail and title, which when you think about it, should be enough, but I'm surprised to realise how much those other pieces play in whether I click on it or not. No description = no click.

It's like shopping at Wal-Mart, not priced = no sale.

Yeah well, I'd like to borrow one of my favorite turns-of-phrase from those irritating Bible-thumpers there donut, a reminiscient quip applicable to your patently smug, ambivalent statement:

"Satan's greatest trick..is convincing the world he does NOT exist..."

uhhhh, Big Pharma is as close to fucking Satan that earthlings will ever see again until the next Holocaust my friend...

I agree that he can be irritating, but I feel like he's one of the few who speaks the truth.

>> ^deedub81:

I cannot force myself to listen to this guy. Most annoying commentator on the planet. I must be shallow.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

There have been a few people hatin' on TYT around here over the last few days.
And I see where you are coming from.
Even I am frequently irritated by Cenk's antics.
But, I believe that TYT serves an important--even necessary--function.
Do you think you'll see this story anywhere in the corporate media?
If you do see it, it will be buried on the lower half of the third page of the second section of your newspaper (a kind of old-timey, papery blog).
So, hate away if you want, I still like TYT for their commitment to real journalism.


By the time TYT puts anything up, I've usually read a story about it linked from Fark first, frequently from a local paper/TV/radio station, with less aping for the camera by Cenk.

Sometimes it's just Cenk reacting to a politician saying something outrageous, so it's usually a better use of your time to just search youtube for the clip in question instead of listening to him rant for twenty minutes about a thirty second soundbite that he never plays in its entirety.

Playing devil's advocate here... is this real journalism? Isn't this just the same sensationalist nonsense from a different angle?

I guess my question would be this: who cares? Who really cares that another cop flew off the handle? What does informing us about this really accomplish? It seems they just sift through local news sources to find human interest pieces that aren't of any particular national relevance (in other words, of coooooourse they aren't covered in the "corporate media"). Further, it means they aren't doing any real journalism, they're sifting through the feed just like everyone else. They aren't exactly knocking on doors or digging through leaked memos here.

This story doesn't really address any of the real issues we're facing. It doesn't address unemployment, or our economic crisis. It doesn't address the global clusterfuck we're in the midst of. It isn't telling us anything we need to know about our elected officials, or how we're being governed (really, unless you consider some local cop to be governance). In the end it's just another piece about some asshole cop because that's what gets eyeballs from lefties. Same shit, different patriotic backdrop.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

There have been a few people hatin' on TYT around here over the last few days.
And I see where you are coming from.
Even I am frequently irritated by Cenk's antics.
But, I believe that TYT serves an important--even necessary--function.
Do you think you'll see this story anywhere in the corporate media?
If you do see it, it will be buried on the lower half of the third page of the second section of your newspaper (a kind of old-timey, papery blog).
So, hate away if you want, I still like TYT for their commitment to real journalism.

There have been a few people hatin' on TYT around here over the last few days.
And I see where you are coming from.
Even I am frequently irritated by Cenk's antics.

But, I believe that TYT serves an important--even necessary--function.
Do you think you'll see this story anywhere in the corporate media?
If you do see it, it will be buried on the lower half of the third page of the second section of your newspaper (a kind of old-timey, papery blog).

So, hate away if you want, I still like TYT for their commitment to real journalism.