They got so much right on that one! Today, we actually have trucks and they use engines -- who could have possibly foreseen such wonders in the darkest ages of the late 1960s?! Surely, this is the result of witchcraft combined with technology and just a wee pinch of leaded gasoline and DDT.

Next week on "Our Amazing Future": an astounding device will wait until your wife is asleep and then deliver an unstoppable deluge of pornography directly to you from all over the world -- in COLOR!!

Military scientists are already hard at work on the "inter-net", by which the conveyance of rank smut into your bedroom will forever put to rest that embarrassing walk over to BIG TONY'S TIT-A-TORIUM for your weekly purchases of "Giant Goddamn Asses" and "Judy Hopps Confidential." Apparently you'll also be able to get news and culture and all that other who-cares bullshit, like anyone gives a fuck since there's gonna be way hella titties! And grey fur.

Can someone please recommend a good mental health specialist?

My father used to play his songs when I was young, I still remember "Smut" and "Pollution".

Fuck them. Down-vote with a vengeance.

I can't stand people terrorizing innocent strangers to get their jollies, nor can I stand that there are so many people who enjoy this trashy smut.

Not at all entertaining or humorous, especially when the sound of the genuine dread in that girl's screams are echoing what's becoming more and more commonplace in real life.

smut

Well there's plenty of places to go for jack-off fuel. Unless you're the type of guy in a titty bar trying to look down the cocktail waitress's blouse, if you want to handle business you go somewhere that brokers your own specific kind of wonderful smut.

It's your site, I'm just trying to help with generalizing the rules to these abstract and subjective ideas like "pornography". But where the line is hazy, I always tend to vote away from censorship >> ^dag:

That's true - and a valid point. I guess it comes down to VideoSift's raison d'etre - jack off fuel or entertaining, thought provoking videos and good conversation?
>> ^rottenseed:
@spoco2 "merit" is funny word...
@dag there is no shortage of this kind of stuff on the Internet - why does VideoSift have to be one more dump for it?
Take a look at the top 15...there's plenty of that kind of stuff on the internet...

Good talk NR. I'm not convinced.... there are cabinet appointments, etc. he's made that make me not trust him, but I am listening. Ob's speech a couple days ago has me wondering you've got a direct line to him or something.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^Truckchase:

I know where you're coming from and I don't disagree with your logic, but I'm not gonna get out there and campaign for or vocally support Obama because I do think his administration is still heavily corrupted by (mainly) the financial industry. As you point out he's not nearly as bad as the repubs, so unless by some miracle Buddy Roemer gets any real traction I'll most likely be voting for Obama and running from the polling place in a ankle length trench coat and hat like a family man from 1974 escaping the newsstand with a smut rag.

Oy, Buddy Roemer? The problem with Buddy Roemer is that he seems to think his becoming President is the only/main way to fix the problem with money in politics. Never mind that the biggest problem with campaign finance law is that a) Republicans always oppose it and b) the Supreme Court has deemed real campaign finance law unconstitutional.

The answer to that is a Constitutional Amendment, not giving Buddy Roemer the potential ability to appoint SCOTUS judges, especially since he'd only get to replace liberals in a 2013-2017 term, not roadblocks like Thomas, Scalia, or Roberts.

I personally don't think silent support is good enough. I'm gonna be out campaigning for Obama nice and loud. I'm especially going to be pushing back against what I see as crazy misinformation, like the story Cenk is pushing here.

Once you strip away the misinformation, the only legitimate liberal complaints I've heard about Obama boil down to "he didn't do enough to make things better" as opposed to "he made something worse". People seem to have rather quickly forgotten the width and breadth of the damage done by Bush and a Republican congress.

Most people just remember the wars, the Patriot Act, and the tax cuts. Fewer people remember the US Attorneys scandal, fewer people remember the way he gutted the SEC, put the EPA on hold, sabotaged the FEC, tried to gut the FCC, turned the NLRB into a union-busting department, and so on. It was a nonstop deluge of sabotage, fraud, and abuse that just went on and on relentlessly for eight fucking years.

It grates me that it's only partially and often only temporarily being undone by Obama, but now those low-publicity nitty-gritty detail stories are almost universally good ones.

The choice isn't really one of a "lesser of two evils" it's a choice between empowering an enemy who's sworn to destroy everything you hold dear, or empowering a friend who's let you down. I see this as a choice between feckless and imperfect good, or pure, ruthless evil.

>> ^Truckchase:

I know where you're coming from and I don't disagree with your logic, but I'm not gonna get out there and campaign for or vocally support Obama because I do think his administration is still heavily corrupted by (mainly) the financial industry. As you point out he's not nearly as bad as the repubs, so unless by some miracle Buddy Roemer gets any real traction I'll most likely be voting for Obama and running from the polling place in a ankle length trench coat and hat like a family man from 1974 escaping the newsstand with a smut rag.

Oy, Buddy Roemer? The problem with Buddy Roemer is that he seems to think his becoming President is the only/main way to fix the problem with money in politics. Never mind that the biggest problem with campaign finance law is that a) Republicans always oppose it and b) the Supreme Court has deemed real campaign finance law unconstitutional.

The answer to that is a Constitutional Amendment, not giving Buddy Roemer the potential ability to appoint SCOTUS judges, especially since he'd only get to replace liberals in a 2013-2017 term, not roadblocks like Thomas, Scalia, or Roberts.

I personally don't think silent support is good enough. I'm gonna be out campaigning for Obama nice and loud. I'm especially going to be pushing back against what I see as crazy misinformation, like the story Cenk is pushing here.

Once you strip away the misinformation, the only legitimate liberal complaints I've heard about Obama boil down to "he didn't do enough to make things better" as opposed to "he made something worse". People seem to have rather quickly forgotten the width and breadth of the damage done by Bush and a Republican congress.

Most people just remember the wars, the Patriot Act, and the tax cuts. Fewer people remember the US Attorneys scandal, fewer people remember the way he gutted the SEC, put the EPA on hold, sabotaged the FEC, tried to gut the FCC, turned the NLRB into a union-busting department, and so on. It was a nonstop deluge of sabotage, fraud, and abuse that just went on and on relentlessly for eight fucking years.

It grates me that it's only partially and often only temporarily being undone by Obama, but now those low-publicity nitty-gritty detail stories are almost universally good ones.

The choice isn't really one of a "lesser of two evils" it's a choice between empowering an enemy who's sworn to destroy everything you hold dear, or empowering a friend who's let you down. I see this as a choice between feckless and imperfect good, or pure, ruthless evil.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Truckchase I know I'm a week late in replying, but I've been sick as a dog, as well as tied up in holiday activities.
I think you and I are in agreement. I think money in politics is a bad thing, and OWS is a really good thing. I'm not throwing rocks at the movement, I'm throwing rocks at liberals saying something along the lines of "I'm never voting Democratic again, #OWS4eva!" as if the protests have somehow made the concept of traditional political action irrelevant.
I do worry that Occupy ends up becoming a movement largely led by people who've totally given up on participating in the election process, and are holding out for some sort of Tahrir Square-style revolution.
Basically, I agree with what Matt Yglesias says here. Who wins elections matters, a lot. OWS is gonna need to back somebody (or better yet, many somebodies) in the 2012 election, or nothing they want to see happen will happen.

Glad you're feeling better NR. I know where you're coming from and I don't disagree with your logic, but I'm not gonna get out there and campaign for or vocally support Obama because I do think his administration is still heavily corrupted by (mainly) the financial industry. As you point out he's not nearly as bad as the repubs, so unless by some miracle Buddy Roemer gets any real traction I'll most likely be voting for Obama and running from the polling place in a ankle length trench coat and hat like a family man from 1974 escaping the newsstand with a smut rag.


Or to cut to the chase:

I think it's important (at least for now) that we silently support whoever we may view as the "lesser of two evils" while maintaining our hopefully long term momentum to overhaul the entire campaign finance system. #rootsrikers

@bareboards2:

I love that you've posted something so meaningful here. I don't normally get involved, but this is just very worthwhile. That people actually do put emotion into this is why the sift is actually cool sometimes.

I was trying to go back and look at the ugly comments that came out of it. There were 1 or 2 shots from the peanut gallery about how they thought it was funny, and reminded them of some other video they posted. Then the predictable battle came out of it, with the people who actually did have problems with the content of the video, and the people who didn't.

I'm trying to understand which comments you thought were ugly. The posts I found that were attempting to support this video were along the lines of, 'if it were a guy being punched, nobody would be this upset.' I didn't see a lot outside of that...but I can't believe that this is what you're upset about, because you yourself posted, 'How different would this conversation have been if the title had been "Equality Achieved -- Women are just as stupid as Men". The same war would have inevitably happened if that were the title; spoco2 would have posted how horrible it is and attempted to shame everyone else for being entertained by it, and that would kick off the debate.

I'm also surprised by your upset at people upvoting a boobshot. I personally think the sift could be a little higher minded as well, but you actually supported gwiz665 in his telling people to 'lighten up' when they were concerned about this sort of smut being on the front page. So, this doesn't seem particularly consistent...

After all of that, I'm trying to come up with a logical conclusion about what your upset with all of this really is about. At least at some point in time in all of this, you were OK with the content of the video, OK with low-brow womanizing junk being on the front page, and OK with comments on comparisons of sexual equity. So, by 'ugly comments,' are you merely upset that a serious and lengthy conversation happened?

If that truly is the case, then what you call ugly, I call character-growing. I saw a lot of ideas expressed, and it really opened my mind up to the number of ways that such an asinine prank could be interpreted. Just because a conversation went on for a long time doesn't mean it was 'trolled to death,' it could just mean it was very worth discussing. A lot of very good ideas and concerns were raised in the frey of all of it, and I think it was absolutely excellent.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*isdupe>> ^Norsuelefantti:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Rowan-Atkinson-No-one-called-Jones-smut-audio-nsfw

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

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Rowan-Atkinson-No-one-called-Jones-smut-audio-nsfw

>> ^quantumushroom:

Somewhat gay.


So brave of you to finally come out.

At last!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hungry hole, smut, san fransisco' to 'hungry hole, smut, san fransisco, John Waters' - edited by notarobot