@peggedbea: and I thought I was radical

Here is the chart so far. It's hard to read because of all the names unfortunately, but you can manually take people off the chart if you like. I added a few inactive sifters from the last time this was posted - if you are one of these people and want to retake, let me know and I'll change it. I also added all of the American presidential candidates and Obama. I'll wait for a few more days for others to join, then I'll post.




http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?showform=&Newname=0.0%2C0.0&Newname=on&Newec=-3.4%2C0.0&Newec=on&Newsoc=-5.6%2C0.0&Newsoc=on&
Dystopianfuturetoday=-7.9%2C-6.9&Alien+Concept=-4.4%2C-4.6&Ctrlaltbleach=-6.3%2C-5.5&Duckman33=-5.8%2C-4.6&Lucky760=-1.4%2C-2.4&Zifnab=-6.6%2C-5.9&Dag
=-4.0%2C-8.4&Fantomas=-7.1%2C-5.3&Gwiz665=0.5%2C-5.7&Lann=-3.1%2C-5.7&Speechless=-7.6%2C-6.0&Radx=-7.0%2C-7.7&Eric3579=-6.9%2C-7.5&Sarzy=0.5%2C-5.4&Bo
ise+Lib=-7.5%2C-7.3&Thegrimsleeper=-4.1%2C-6.2&Kulpims=-7.5%2C-8.4&Critical+D=-4.9%2C-6.9&Longde+=-3.5%2C-3.2&Norsuelefantti=-7.6%2C-7.4&Crosswords+=-
3.7%2C-4.9&Ron+Paul=9.5%2C-1.0&Obama=6.0%2C6.0&Romney=7.0%2C6.5&Santorum=7.0%2C8.5&Gingrich=8.0%2C7.5&Qualm=-10.0%2C-10.0&Blankfist=3.9%2C-6.2&Farhad2
000=-3.4%2C-5.6&Newname=0.0%2C0.0&Newname=on&Newec=-9.3%2C0.0&Newec=on&Newsoc=-9.8%2C0.0&Newsoc=on&Peggedbea=-9.3%2C-9.8&newname=&newec=&newsoc=

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #125 (supplied by member peggedbea) - video declared dead by member oritteropo.

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #3196 (supplied by member peggedbea) - video declared dead by member oritteropo.

I feel like I may have already addressed this a few comments up.
It's the pro-life rhetorical devices he's using. I get an innocent slip of the tongue. I make them constantly. But it's all adding up to a picture of a misogynistic, rascist old dinosaur. And maybe he's even misogynistic and rascist in the way my elderly family members are. I love them anyway and over look their archaic viewpoint an awful lot, but I don't want them making, passing and enforcing laws on everyone elses behalf.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.
Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."
(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)
>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.

Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."

(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)

>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

I disagree. He's discussing what HE SEES as a way around a system that outlaws abortion period. A system that he is on record, in favor of, btw.

In the cases of "honest rape" he is not opposed to emergency contraception. The phrase "honest rape" is anti-woman, victim blamey, proto-fascist rhetoric. I have 0 problem with his stance on emergency contraception. I also have no problem with a system that disallows late term abortion, except in cases when the mothers life is in danger. Late term abortion is ghastly. I'm against it. But "late term abortion" is also another pro-life rhetorical device. To make the entire arena of reproductive choice emotionally repulsive. The instances of late term abortions are extremely rare, but there's tons of hype about it out of the mouths of pro-lifers.

So, his rhetoric is abhorrent. Add this to his revisionist speeches in front of confederate flags, insanely rascist newsletters with his name on it, and I find it hard to believe that it's all an accident. I'm no longer buying that he's just a doting, old, confused by stander instead of a misogynistic, racist old dinosaur from the 1950's.

Oh, and as an OB/GYN, he should be WELL aware of the various psychological and emotional states of victims of sexual assaults. He should be well aware that we all don't just immediately rush over to the emergency room screaming "rape". And that just because we didn't do that, it doesn't mean we weren't "honestly" violated.
>> ^aurens:

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.
Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.

Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

This x1000

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 5:55am PST - promote requested by original submitter peggedbea.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 2:50pm PST - promote requested by peggedbea.

Damn, can I not quote because I am the big red P? Anyways, an attempt above to respond to peggedbea. They sound like very cool people I would like to meet, and even "science" may not explain their politics.

>> ^peggedbea:

>> ^NetRunner:

How about the people who will go out, and donate money, volunteer for, and vote for a guy like this? Can they be saved? Can the rest of us be saved from them?

i find this really interesting. i have two really, really badass friends. They're eclectic neo pagans. They support gay marriage. They love pre-marital sex. They love kinky sex. They give their children advice on masturbation and safe sex. They are not themselves swingers, but they hang out with lots of them. They smoke pot. They both have master's degrees in health science fields. They decorate their "yule" tree with pentagrams. They're really intelligent, groovy people. and They love Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin. I can't even ask them about it because we made a pact a long time ago that we wouldn't discuss politics. Because it makes our heads explode. BUT THIS MYSTERY IS MAKING MY HEAD WANT TO EXPLODE.


That is the most fucked up thing I read here on videosift.

>> ^peggedbea:

i'm upvoting only for the discussion here.
i'm an atheist. but i'm not a passionate one.
i normally really like chris hedge's.
i normally really don't like sam harris, or pz myers for that matter. i used to really really dislike hitchen's (the whole pro-iraq war thing) but i find him more palletable now. i think hedge's nailed what exactly it is about those men that rubs me the wrong way, it's the haughtiness.

but... this clip is full of straw men. it's beneath hedge's. feels like an advertisement for his book. but instead of making me want to read it, it makes me want to throw it at him for trying to sell shit with straw men and inflammatory-ish-ness. he can do better.


@peggedbea I have to completely agree, I've seen some really excellent arguments and speeches made by Hedges, so I was a bit saddened to see the over-generalized arguments he makes in this advert. Reading the quotes @dystopianfuturetoday posted (and I've seen the debates) leads me to believe there are some elements of truth in Hedges argument, however the way he presents it completely misses out the detail, where important distinctions are made.

So you're saying that if it wasn't for religion humans would find some other aspect of human nature to exploit? Not really profound, but it really does make sense. For example, religion is being used as a means to deny gays the same rights the rest of us have. However, when it comes down to it, some people just feel that homosexuality is icky. And you know what? As ignorant as that is, it's just as natural for somebody to be repulsed by certain sexual behaviors as it is to be attracted to some sexual behaviors. As long as people disagree there will be conflict. The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power. Furthermore, if somebody doesn't agree with something that's ok. And since there is no god, therefore no word of god, our differences are merely individual preference.>> ^peggedbea:

I want to believe that this is the point chris hedge's is attempting to make:
whenever i listen to or read anything from sam harris i feel like he's trying to blame religion for all the evil. but i don't feel like he's naming it correctly. there's a more basic manipulation taking place. religion is simply the chosen mechanism. religion is a tool for social control. faith is a rather benign human characteristic. people WANT to have faith in something. and religion manipulates that desire to control X population. it's not the faith in something mystic and silly that fucks up the world, it's the emotional manipulation employed. but in alternate universe B, maybe the mechanism for social control looks completely different. and there are more than one mechanism for social control happening in this universe. class and race and sex are the most obvious. in harris's effort to vilify one single mechanism, instead of the underlying attribute (you could call it greed?), it often feels like he's creating another kind of tribalism. us vs. them. smart atheists vs. stupid evil religious people. i feel very divisive when i listen to him and his ilk. i'd rather not dislike religious people. i'd rather focus all my bad feelings on the men who manipulate basest desires to control the masses for financial gain. i'd rather hear more about who they are and how to stop them then about how insane religious people are going to destroy all of creation.