@westy Is that sarcastic sarcasm?

@RedSky So what do you imagine are the consequences of rolling back social programs?

These people are disenfranchised, disheartened and feel powerless to change their lives as a result of a lack of education, social investment and employment opportunities that would give them some meaning (though the last is harder to ascribe as the government's fault). You make a person feel powerless long enough and bad things happen. You make a lot of people feel powerless for long enough and shit like this happens.

It astounds me that conservatards continue to fear and resent minorities and the powerless poor in America while corporations and billionaires destroy everything around them.

>> ^RFlagg:

One would hope this deal would cause a backlash against the government, but it won't. The American people are too pacified to care and will continue to let the government and the rich that control it run them down. Too pacified by the fact that the upcoming episode of Hell's Kitchen (or whatever show) is going to be the most shocking ever! Too pacified by a new map pack for CoD that needs dominated. Too pacified by a religion that says the party that is most responsible for handing power over to the corporations and the rich are the moral choice because they are the ones who say they care for the unborn, and ignore the ass fuck you are receiving from the rich because who matters more? The unborn or your ass comfort? Too pacified by a right wing agenda media that lies and manipulates their public into ignoring logic and thinking this is a good deal. Too pacified by a so called "liberal media" that is in the end, corporate controlled and still presents the view that is best represents the immediate short term profit needs of the corporation. Too pacified by an education system that has failed them. Failed to teach even a basic understanding of science or just as if not more importantly, critical thinking...


I have to say I agree with almost all of what you're saying.

Where I disagree is that I think this will indeed cause a backlash against "the government", but will result in people stupidly voting for candidates who're making government suck but say "I think government sucks, elect me!" or result in people just getting disillusioned and not bothering to vote.

I also think a lot of American culture emphasizes individualism to a fault -- people who face hardship almost universally blame themselves for it. They've been told since they were a child that we're all equal, and that adult life is essentially meritocratic. If you're poor, it's because you aren't working hard enough, or made bad choices, and if you're well off it's because you're a hard working, entrepreneurial individual who did it all on your own.

We're encouraged to stay divided on lines of race, class, religion, ideology, sexual orientation, state, urbanization, school district, sports team, etc. to make sure we never build up large blocs of solidarity. The old sources of broad-based solidarity like churches, unions, and schools have been systematically corrupted or destroyed.

It's divide and conquer masquerading as "individualism".

It's not that people in America are content -- far from it! It's that we all feel isolated and powerless, and have no experience with using collective action to empower ourselves.

I don't know how we get the fire lit in people to join hands together and fight, but we're just gonna keep getting screwed as long as we refuse to work together against our oligarchs.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

This was a pain to watch. It was slow and she just seemed like she was trying to create a conspiracy. It costs money because you're paying them for a service. It's not a "tax" to vote.


You do understand that there's a historical allusion being made when she refers to this as a poll tax, don't you?

It's about trying to usurp the political power of a group of people you want to keep powerless by putting up roadblocks to their ability to vote.

>> ^burdturgler:

I disagree that the only people with influence over this situation are those who have wealth and "power", and with your characterization of viewers as "powerless". In my mind it's the complete opposite. The viewers have all the power. The power to write. To call. To contact advertisers. To e-mail .. twitter, blog, petition, etc etc their unhappiness and unwillingness to partake of the "product". And most importantly, the power to change the channel, cancel subscriptions and so on.

And my point is that this kind of reasoning winds up being an easy excuse for virtually any decision anyone in power ever makes. It's sort of a "the masses didn't rise up in rebellion to stop me, so it must be okay" sort of philosophy.

Nobody wants the environment protected, because they haven't given up using electricity or gasoline.

Nobody wants to stop sweatshops from operating, because they keep buying cheap clothes at Walmart.

It's not the people watching Fox, buying gas, and tube socks who're spreading propaganda, playing fast and loose with safety on oil wells, and running sweatshops.

I agree, in theory collective action could stop all those things. But that's very different from saying the people running the companies cannot or should not be held responsible for the choices they're making about how they do business, because it's really their customers making all the moral choices.

"Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?"


I asked you the same question above. "What do you think is really the driving force NetRunner? The people who broadcast or the people who watch?" Clearly you think the broadcasters are most culpable for the problem we both agree exists.


But why would you blame the network? It's not their job to educate or inform people. They are not a community service. They are a corporation driven by profits. Apparently, they've run the numbers and garbage is what sells. You may think it wouldn't cause a significant drop in ratings to avoid hype, but that's because you would appreciate more substantial fare. Many people would. Unfortunately the vast majority doesn't and the proof is all over every form of media available. Is that shitty news for "news"? Sure is. But to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you.

I disagree that the only people with influence over this situation are those who have wealth and "power", and with your characterization of viewers as "powerless". In my mind it's the complete opposite. The viewers have all the power. The power to write. To call. To contact advertisers. To e-mail .. twitter, blog, petition, etc etc their unhappiness and unwillingness to partake of the "product". And most importantly, the power to change the channel, cancel subscriptions and so on.

I shouldn't have used the word "stupid". I'm not out their clubbing mentally challenged people like baby seals. It was a catch all phrase for what I tried to clarify as "a bunch of fucking zombie-eyed, vote-texting, self-involved twittering imbeciles with an attention span of 10 seconds or less." Those are the people I blame.

>> ^NetRunner:

Like I said, I don't blame stupid people for being stupid. No one chooses to be an idiot. Smart people with control over a major broadcast network, them I blame.
I reject the notion that people wouldn't be interested in topics of substance. I think people are hungry for it. I think that's doubly true if broadcasters actually tried to make what's important interesting, instead of trying to make what's sensational seem important. I seriously doubt their ratings would go down if their quality improved.
The real problem is that it'd cut into profit margins. It costs a little more to cover any of our 3 wars, or the economy than it does for someone to just peruse twitter and talk about the latest gossip. It wouldn't really cost all that much more, but it'd be more than nothing. But since their goal is only to make money, then the argument will basically be "why bother spending money you don't have to?"
Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?
>> ^burdturgler:
We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.

Like I said, I don't blame stupid people for being stupid. No one chooses to be an idiot. Smart people with control over a major broadcast network, them I blame.

I reject the notion that people wouldn't be interested in topics of substance. I think people are hungry for it. I think that's doubly true if broadcasters actually tried to make what's important interesting, instead of trying to make what's sensational seem important. I seriously doubt their ratings would go down if their quality improved.

The real problem is that it'd cut into profit margins. It costs a little more to cover any of our 3 wars, or the economy than it does for someone to just peruse twitter and talk about the latest gossip. It wouldn't really cost all that much more, but it'd be more than nothing. But since their goal is only to make money, then the argument will basically be "why bother spending money you don't have to?"

Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?

>> ^burdturgler:

We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.

In answering other points; I never demand anything. Nor have I. Have you ever been wistful? That's how I feel and that's the emotion I am trying to express.

And I have always pointed to the fact that masses of people make stupid decisions. Perhaps because their worst traits feed off of one another's worst traits? But I strongly note that individuals are awesome, most smart, and better (Including yourself in this) than a mob or culture.

There is not a sense of admin versus the little guy from me. There is a sense of admins sometimes powerless to stop what has occurred.

But, let's note something else, since I feel long of wind today. It is your opinion that my view points are skewered, and that is fine. Perhaps that it is different, or otherwise "skewered," points to the possibility that it is better than others--although lacking self confidence prohibits me from feeling that way. As such, I will take the comment as neither compliment nor jab but as is--an opinion.

But now let me switch to socratic fashion in this--since he is my hero and I can better put my point of view across. And, so let's question some "knowns." It will help answer the question of how I got to my conclusions.

You stated that everything done here is for the "best" for the videosift community. So, if you will, please enlighten the sift on some quantifiable "best." Remember though, if you please, that doing for others a convinence is neither good nor ill, neither for the best nor worse but, rather, situational.

Also, we should remeber that the best is not necessarily such things as making people happy. Much happiness has been wrought at the expense of others. For instance, the estranged husband whose wife passes, or the videos of cops killing helpless people with brute force.

If I may ask, what was the reason for the standard in the first place? You seem to have stated, by denying that morals were comprimised, that the standard was never a standard, but rather, just a guideline created for creations sake.

Further, if I may be so bold, after admitting yourself that the slippery slope was started, then how can you boldly note that it should stop? My opinion was that it should have never started. And, while it is possible to state that the comment you made wasn't about the slippery slope starting, it is, unfortunately, now about that.

The fact that "the guards say they are powerless to end the abuse" is completely ridiculous. The reason the abuse continues is simply gross negligence on the part of the corrections staff, plain and simple. I work in one of the largest maximum security prisons in the country. Most of the men I deal with on a daily basis are serving life sentences for murder. You don't need 600 million dollars to fix the problem (as the officer suggests), you need officers who do their job. What was the reason they don't have an officer watching the inmates at all times? -- "They can't function," "they don't like the idea of having an officer with them"...so what? "They want to run things"...ok so, you let them?

Why in the world would officers only see the men when they're feeding them or making a head count? Especially when you know that they are brutally attacking one another when you're not around?

Unfortunately, I fear that violence continues like this in jails and prisons because it is tacitly condoned, if not perpetuated, by the corrections staff. It is a means of control - keep them afraid of each other, and leverage for extortion, as we see in Shawshank," "do this or I'll cast you down with the Sodomites."

Another thing I've learned...people in prison (both employees and inmates) act very very different when cameras are around.

Exactly, people shouldn't be allowed to complain about being called niggers, bitches or faggots. Letting people get away with doing that, casually, on an everyday basis, is obviously harmless and would never lead to a society of minority oppression and intolerance. There's no way that bigots and assholes will feel that their attitudes are justified when everyone around them keeps using hateful, denigrating words and the targets are powerless to do anything about it. And there's no reason at all to think that if we keep fighting for our right to offend whoever we want, society will be unable to progress and grow out of prejudice, racism, and misogyny.

What a fucking idiot.

nope, but you can direct them to places where they can learn the tools, or scrap the psa and use the money to teach stress management classes in schools. >> ^alien_concept:

>> ^peggedbea:
The idea that the abused grow into abusers is kind of.... meh.... Only about 30% of people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their own kids. Because 70% of us grow up to see ourselves in the eyes of every frightened child ever.
Abuse is about anger and it's about power. It's the inability to cope with stress or feelings of powerlessness. It's rampant in areas of high poverty, but certainly isn't non-existant in the homes of the wealthy.
Sure, I like the IDEA of PSA's.. but generally find them targeting the wrong side of the issue. This PSA targets the symptom, but not the root. If the root cause of domestic violence is power and an inability to cope with stress productively, then why can't we have a campaign to teach positive coping skills and educate little people and big people and even bigger people how to productively manage stress and take control of their own lives? ..... oh, right.. because that might actually EMPOWER people instead of just scare and depress them.

Because you can't teach people how to cope and manage stress in a 30 second advert?

>> ^peggedbea:

The idea that the abused grow into abusers is kind of.... meh.... Only about 30% of people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their own kids. Because 70% of us grow up to see ourselves in the eyes of every frightened child ever.
Abuse is about anger and it's about power. It's the inability to cope with stress or feelings of powerlessness. It's rampant in areas of high poverty, but certainly isn't non-existant in the homes of the wealthy.
Sure, I like the IDEA of PSA's.. but generally find them targeting the wrong side of the issue. This PSA targets the symptom, but not the root. If the root cause of domestic violence is power and an inability to cope with stress productively, then why can't we have a campaign to teach positive coping skills and educate little people and big people and even bigger people how to productively manage stress and take control of their own lives? ..... oh, right.. because that might actually EMPOWER people instead of just scare and depress them.


Because you can't teach people how to cope and manage stress in a 30 second advert?

Wasn't worried, nor did I take it personally .... it is just my nature to say -- hey, I didn't say that, you misunderstood. Just like to keep the record straight, is all.

I'll eventually learn to just let misunderstandings be, it seems to provoke more confusion than trying to straighten things out.

PSAs. There is a whole 'nother topic....

Kisses!



In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
hey lady,
i didn't take your comment personally if that's what you were worried about.

i always feel like most of the PSA campaigns i see are going about it all wrong.
for instance, i would like to see an anti-drug PSA that's more about human rights and the gross exploitation of the third world thats inherent in the production of hard drugs. I did a ton of drugs as a very young kid, and knowing the kind of kid i was, i would never ever have shoved coke up my nose if i knew how it was made, who made it, how it gets here and how many people died over it on its way to my blood stream. i think that kind of thing would be even more relevant now that the cartel war in mexico is all over the news. the typical 1990 "drugs are bad, mkay?" commercials that were on when i was kid seem completely impotent.

sure, maybe PSA's don't hurt. but i think a very serious cost/benefit analysis should be made.... is this making enough bang for the buck?? is there another, more productive, method of outreach we could use these funds for?? maybe keep the PSA because it undoubtedly gets the message out to the greatest amount of people, but maybe the PSA could be about signs of poorly managed stress and the importance of coping skills and where to get the tools to deal with out of control feelings. or some shit. i don't know. just my 2 cents.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Um, my comment was about the 30% who grow up to be abusers. It wasn't directed to the 70% who didn't.

And you're right, there are other things to do.

The PSA is just a tactic. One tactic.

It certainly doesn't hurt, and it might help.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
The idea that the abused grow into abusers is kind of.... meh.... Only about 30% of people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their own kids. Because 70% of us grow up to see ourselves in the eyes of every frightened child ever.

Abuse is about anger and it's about power. It's the inability to cope with stress or feelings of powerlessness. It's rampant in areas of high poverty, but certainly isn't non-existant in the homes of the wealthy.

Sure, I like the IDEA of PSA's.. but generally find them targeting the wrong side of the issue. This PSA targets the symptom, but not the root. If the root cause of domestic violence is power and an inability to cope with stress productively, then why can't we have a campaign to teach positive coping skills and educate little people and big people and even bigger people how to productively manage stress and take control of their own lives? ..... oh, right.. because that might actually EMPOWER people instead of just scare and depress them.

Um, my comment was about the 30% who grow up to be abusers. It wasn't directed to the 70% who didn't.

And you're right, there are other things to do.

The PSA is just a tactic. One tactic.

It certainly doesn't hurt, and it might help.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
The idea that the abused grow into abusers is kind of.... meh.... Only about 30% of people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their own kids. Because 70% of us grow up to see ourselves in the eyes of every frightened child ever.

Abuse is about anger and it's about power. It's the inability to cope with stress or feelings of powerlessness. It's rampant in areas of high poverty, but certainly isn't non-existant in the homes of the wealthy.

Sure, I like the IDEA of PSA's.. but generally find them targeting the wrong side of the issue. This PSA targets the symptom, but not the root. If the root cause of domestic violence is power and an inability to cope with stress productively, then why can't we have a campaign to teach positive coping skills and educate little people and big people and even bigger people how to productively manage stress and take control of their own lives? ..... oh, right.. because that might actually EMPOWER people instead of just scare and depress them.

The idea that the abused grow into abusers is kind of.... meh.... Only about 30% of people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their own kids. Because 70% of us grow up to see ourselves in the eyes of every frightened child ever.

Abuse is about anger and it's about power. It's the inability to cope with stress or feelings of powerlessness. It's rampant in areas of high poverty, but certainly isn't non-existant in the homes of the wealthy.

Sure, I like the IDEA of PSA's.. but generally find them targeting the wrong side of the issue. This PSA targets the symptom, but not the root. If the root cause of domestic violence is power and an inability to cope with stress productively, then why can't we have a campaign to teach positive coping skills and educate little people and big people and even bigger people how to productively manage stress and take control of their own lives? ..... oh, right.. because that might actually EMPOWER people instead of just scare and depress them.