You do see this trend across YouTube and also on TV.

There are plenty of women who are seeking attention, in whatever form it comes, and will post vlog's for the sake of those comments. It's not healthy or positive, but it happens.

I know it's strange to think, but many women have been raised to feel inferior to men and to be more "delicate". Plenty of studies show that older generations systematically trained females to feel helpless. For instance, if a male child falls, they tell him to suck it up, but if it's a female child, they coddle her, or worse, they refuse to let her also play because she might get hurt.

So when you have women who are already fighting these self-esteem issues, they are not going to throw themselves to the wolves to be hounded by comments. Also, this may be a shocker too, but some people actually get caught up on negative comments. Some people will read 10 comments about them, but only remember the one negative one.

So after spending all day be bombarded by sexualized ads, hyper-sexualized and unrealistic portrayals of women, and dealing with men who have also fallen prey to this, many are not willing to hoist themselves up for all to tear down.

Instead, she's encouraging them to do just that. To throw themselves out there and for the rest of us to help support them by telling sexist assholes to shut the fuck up and grow the fuck up or get the fuck out. *ahem* I mean, STFU or GTFO.

I'm not sure about the American education system, but here in Canada the dumbing down of it is appalling to me. It's been getting dumbed down in the name of being 'open minded' and other nonesense by people that don't understand basic reading, writing and arithmetic are not subjective studies and can't be taught in a everyone can do it how they feel manner. Our curriculum is being designed around 2+2=5 isn't 'wrong' it's just that a student applied a different method and should still get partial marks. Our schools are also implementing 'no-fail' policies that basically do away with the 'social stigma' attached to failing and insisting that all students pass each grade unless parents agree, teachers and all staff agree. It's no wonder our western standards are falling, as we are exploiting every last inch of the luxury we have to do so.

That said, I do believe comparisons of students here to those in places like say China are misleading. Shanghai may top the global charts on student results, but I question how complete those statistical methods are. China is very focused, and understands you don't need or even want EVERYONE to be an expert in politics, economics and astrophysics. As a result most people aren't going to go beyond our equivalent of middle years or maybe junior high before entering the workforce. The students that remain in school will be the best and brightest. If you then take ONLY students enrolled in high school from a place like that and compare it to the west, your numbers will of course badly favor the countries limiting student enrollment.

As I noted above, it's no reason for complacency. I'm spending hours and hours each week compensating and supplementing the education my kids aren't getting because of systematically flawed education system .

I'm sorry, but those conclusions are pure emotional based off what you see in the MSM. If you can find me a study, a legitimate one, not one from Faux News or Huffington Post, that actually shows that a government safety net induces vagrant behavior, then I will believe you. Until then, I will stick with all the studies that show very clearly that social safety barriers do in fact work, and that the decades old gutting of the programs are wrecking havoc on the system. Not to mentioned the systematic desecration of the educational system that's been designed solely for "efficiency" and pumps out students that are over qualified, unhappy, massively in debt and lead to believe a lie in which they can never achieve, or the exact opposite and ditches those most in need yet are the most visually different.

Combine this with white flight, red lining, and a culture of fear mongering, race baiting and rapid communication and we have a perfect storm. The general population is so overrun with sad stories and empathy inducing situations they actually go into empathy shock - a state in which they cease to care and numb themselves so they don't have to make a decision. A decision which they may later feel bad about. Instead, it's "nothing I can do about it so I won't care." And yes, this happens with those "gang-bangers" you talk about.

Instead of solving the situation, which is a blatant and total discrepancy in incomes, social normality, and general empathy, we will continue to have this problem. So long as white flight occurs and the NYPD openly racially profiles and harasses 110% (no joke) of the black community, and so long as the Christian Right still chants "it's ok to profile brown people" both in NYC, Arizona and everywhere else we will continue to have this problem.

Ever hear of the Theory of Attitudes? Or Reactance? There is far more going on than "if we give them money they'll stop working." Because I'm pretty sure every Christmas when your parents (general assumption) gives you presents, you instantly stop working. Totally proven concept, eh?

Jesus Christ and the gun-bashing bandwagon is leaving the station. My ramblings lost in the ether regardless of facts or fucking figures (death stats by firearms or violence), become mute when you consider that more Germans die of complications from their annual Bratwurst intake than from violent crimes. MY POINT was to pooh-pooh quadrophonic who turned the thread in the direction it went with a simple comment.

Then comes the bandwagon, which I attempted to derail, and now everyone wants to jump in and whine about their take on issues surrounding firearms in the United States, like they are some fucking problem. The problems' with criminals being created by a broken criminal justice system, the fear mongering fomented by news organizations and the cunts proposing legislation whenever some imbecile snaps, and the lackeys that feed on their output like pablum.

All stats, all anger directed at senseless crimes committed by the uncommitted with guns (mass shootings), and all dumb assess who feed on news organization's and their editorializing on sensible laws for guns (that we don't already have) in order to justify more laws become IRRELEVANT when you consider, that by design disarming partially or completely the average citizen is the goal of any fascist.

Most of you who UP-voted ASMO's comment without this explained context or with it, are pretty much the lay-down-and-fuck-me types who, should some fascist regime pop-in and tell them what and how to do things now, would enthusiastically succumb, especially if the offer were candy-coated and the statistics looked good, and you could keep things like groceries and your fucking car.
(and yeah, I up'ed quad's comment...I love to jump head-first into threads hi-jacked by passionate fools)

Or, you simply live in another paradigm (being in a country who has not systematically programmed their inhabitants with violence, fear, and race-tensions) and have no reference for the consternation of a sane, reasonable person surrounded by minions of dutiful robots.

Because inflation is used to drive money towards the very very few. It's essentially one part of economic cycle hijacked: if you don't raise wages with inflation, someone is going to pocket that money. Those who do, are not the ones paying wages. System controls inflation by creating more money out of thin air. Money that's being pumped out is then laundered to assets that aren't affected by inflation.

If you want to gather a nest egg, savings for the rainy day, invest in valuable metals.... It's basically the only thing a middle class can afford and trust. Don't invest to anything that exist only in paper.

Next: derivatives are cashed out..They are astronomical in scale of value, all exist only in paper. By collapsing that, then catching just a small portion of the perceived value and changing that to other type of assets is still billions. Which is the next part of systematic market meltdown, where trillions are used to pocket billions to very small number of bags.

sounds good on a blog maybe but one scenario of what will have to happen before people see trees in this forest of shrubberies is rendering into glue, the health care and insurance scamstym (which is what these institutions are) THEN, we systematically make examples of the families and beneficiaries of the scam (public executions would be more than appropriate considering their crimes), and we do this for the next 100 years. (because after 60 years the world has all but forgotten the inevitable end of massive control grids and their perpetrator'(s) methods. The empire never died, it has been given a green-light to refine her, mass-ass-fucking techniques

Ain't gonna happen without major shocks from without because from within, it can not be corrected without a revamp of critical thinking for the masses....who are largely ineffectual robot-slaves.\

*edit, here's a fun one..
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need-health-care-coverage-just-dial-1-800-fuckyo-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/

Here's a bigger picture of mandatory " health insurance" , one that resembles another failed institution's successes and failures through extortion with the goal of diverting capitol to private coffers.

Fuck birth control, I don't feed myself as influenced by the corporate media machine's saturation diet of shit food but the majority of unhealthy, overweight, drones in sector EVERYWHERE do-The bulk of health care expenses in the U.S. are squandered on correcting or marginally forestalling the inevitable cascading failures associated with these poor diet habits fostered by the machine. The SAME machine owns the insurance companies, the medical establishment, down the fucking line.

Chicago 1921-1923- New York, Boston, hell pick a city on the east coast.
The mafia invented it, gangster fucks perfected it, it continues under the guise of the Affordable (fuck you, I have my own insurance) Care Act.

If people, were not such fucking imbeciles, they'd see through the simple veil of graft and extortion these suited, elected (joke) criminals use to continue to divert attention away from the obvious criminality of their ruse.

Get me started on eating healthy and the lack of availability and inaccessibility of the healthiest of raw materials...of how staple crops have been hijacked and genetically coded with ONE goal preeminent: To increase the profits of the monopolies that control the food supply.

The fastest way to fix the problem of affordable health care, is to fix the broken habits of dumb-ass humans who allow themselves to be bent-over and ass-fucked into thinking they need insurance AT ALL!

Teach people that their diets are being being systematically and fundamentally altered to keep them in this loop and the insurance companies and the cunts who make the laws that benefit them, will collapse under the weight of their own, orchestrated illusion.

So really the issue is people are doing something illegal and getting busted for it. The government is aware that people will routinely break said law and are profiting off it.

So the real issue is that the government is acting as a for-profit organization, right? That still doesn't negate that people are breaking the law and getting busted for it. If the drivers followed the speed limit, then the government couldn't profit off them, now could they? *smacks forehead*

See, with red light cameras there's a legitimate argument to be made. If a driver is following the speed limit, and break safely, there is a set time the yellow light should progress in order to insure compliance and safety. So for instance, if a vehicle traveling at 30MPH takes 10 seconds to come to a slow, controlled stop, the yellow should last for 12 seconds to ensure the drivers a reasonable time to notice the light change and react. (Normal human reaction time is between .3 to 2 seconds.)

So if the government sets the yellow to only 5 seconds, this creates an unsafe and unreasonable margin. And then, if the safest and more sane thing to do is "run the red" and are subsequently ticketed, then that's entrapment. That is wrong, and is something someone can complain about.

Complaining that you got caught speeding, well, boohoo for you. Don't speed. No one is forcing you to speed. So it's your own damn fault, no matter if the government is profiting off it or what video is posted.

If what you're really complaining about is that the actual design of the road triggers a natural response to travel at a "perceived safe speed" (which is a real thing) and the limit is set to a lower than needed limit, then that's something you can complain about. Still doesn't mean speeding isn't illegal.

Speed traps don't work in general. All they trigger is a momentary change in behavior and once the negative force is removed, the behavior continues. But because of the quota systems placed by "hard on crime" Republicans, real change isn't going to happen. Instead what you're seeing is a systematic failure of a rewards and punishment system that has long been proven to be ineffective and counter-productive.

Instead, if they really want to slow speeds, they should redesign the road and perhaps do a road diet, re-stripe the lanes, use bricks or plant trees (which is illegal by DOT standards btw - they hurt cars if they crash, but people don't, so it's better to hit people than trees - no joke, literally their logic.)

Or, if you're worried the police force is resorting to the quota and a misguided broken windows policy, then that's something to address. You're lack of ability to lay off the gas pedal is not a "liberties" issue or the "man putting you down."

The focus is totally misguided and the video is proof.

@cosmovitelli, I'm still not seeing any hard facts from you. Yes, those are all awful things, but you are alleging that these people are demonstrably worse than Hitler (systematically killed at least 6 million Jews, arguably responsible for the largest conflict the world has ever seen), Stalin (murdered, tortured and deported .... well, no-one knows, but estimates range from 3 to 60 million) and Genghis Khan (killed a sizeable percentage of the worlds population at the time).

Also, you are aggregating the acts of every US president since Truman vs the acts of 3 individuals.

That's an extraordinary claim, and I think you need to provide some facts and figures to back it up.

Yes, insisting that diplomacy is likely to stop Assad's continued campaign of murdering his own people is a problem for me. Sure, maybe I should just accept it as naive and not malicious, but people are being killed while the world stands around yet again refusing to do anything, and that makes me angry.

I'm not trying to whitewash America's role in Iraq either. If anything I'd say my picture is a lot blacker than the people I disagree with the most. The only point I think I differ on is that I DO hold Saddam even more responsible for what he did than America or Saudi Arabia or any of his other backers. I see no reason to apologize for that. Read up on Saddam's Al Anfal campaign against the Kurds, his gassing of Kurdish villages was the least of the atrocities he committed against the Kurds. Saddam had been destroying everything in Iraq the entire time he was in power, from the absolute repression that was everyday life, to the endless feeding of Iraqi bodies to into the Iran-Iraq war, to the genocide of the Kurds, to the genocide of the Shia, Saddam had killed millions of Iraqis and systematically orchestrated and encouraged sectarian hatred and divisions. All that time America continued to callously back him because America was happy to see Iraq and Iran bleed themselves out against each other. If I find some solace in finally, at long last seeing America change it's tune and finally opposing Saddam it's not for because I think America is some humanitarian entity. You list all the devastation in Iraq since the American invasion, but just what realistic alternative version of Iraq do you see could exist today if non-intervention had been held to? Iraq today would STILL be under Saddam's control today, and I would insist anyone wanting that alternative doesn't know what Saddam really was like. I also insist it must be known that the Iraqi people were NOT going to manage to liberate themselves without foreign intervention. The Kurds contemplated it once, and it ended in a campaign of genocide and systematic rape to breed the Kurds out of existence. The Shia tried it once, and it ended in genocide for them too. The Iraqi people knew exactly how opposition to Saddam ended and it was NOT going to happen without someone coming in from outside.

Maybe I just see the world as that much more awful and horrific a place. Just because things are bad and horrific doesn't mean they couldn't be a far sight worse, and in fact haven't been a far sight worse in the recent past.

I don't object to demands for caution and concern that getting involved in a conflict can lead it escalate. I object to defending dictators with impossible barriers and burdens of proof. The fact the UN teams have trouble getting evidence shouldn't be touted as reason to question Assad's involvement when he steadily interferes and endeavors to hinder the UN investigations. If we require concrete evidence before declaring Assad guilty, and Assad refuses the UN access until they have concrete evidence a problem has arisen, no?

All right, so I just went back and read my earlier reply to this, and I think it got a bit too harsh at one point (it was very late, and I was very tired). Sorry about that.

And I'm really sorry about your mom. Seriously. It fucking sucks in so many ways, and nobody should have to go through what you, your mom, and probably many others around you went through due to one horrible sack of shit.

However, it's still only anecdotal. Just like you claimed that the issue shown in this video might individual rather than systemic, and that women as a whole shouldn't be blamed for the actions of one woman.

But that's exactly the kind of judgment you are passing on men.

I mean, conversely, I have my own shitty-ass stories of abuse ...except the villains in all of my stories just happened to be women (no male teacher ever abused me in any way). But I don't necessarily hold that against women as a gender. Sure, I think it might've been exacerbated by the fact that the school system is heavily dominated by women who, when they are pushed into a corner by the incredibly bad system they're stuck with, just have a harder time understanding and relating to young boys than they do young girls. But I don't go on masculinist rants claiming that I was somehow systematically oppressed by women as a group, because that is just crazy-talk (and no, I am not a masculinist, or even MRA (partisanship is for fucking CHUMPS, and I am no chump)).

However, the fact remains that you've brought nothing to this conversations except belligerently stated opinions which you refuse to back up when asked to do so. That's not fair to the people who are talking to you, and it certainly isn't fair to you yourself who is made to look like an idiot because hey; stupid is as stupid does.

If you engage me in a conversation and are able to back your shit up, I will gladly give you the time of day. I may not agree with you - in fact, it's possible that my disagreement will be downright vehement - but I'm going to review your statements and your sources seriously and respond to them (somewhat) seriously.

Unless they are TOO stupid, in which case it is possible that I will point at you and laugh.

If I think your arguments are sound, and believe me when I say that I am fair in this because I push myself hard to stay rational, I will actually tell you that your arguments are sound. And if you actually manage to prove me wrong, I will literally tell you that you proved me wrong. It has been known to happen (exceedingly rarely), and I always manage to stay upfront and honest because the only thing that really matters to me is the truth.

So please don't fucking bail on an argument like that again, because it drives me up the fucking walls.

@VoodooV
dont be too harsh on our boy @blankfist at least he has us talking about some pretty important issues.

if we do not discuss the hard issues and deal with truths and only hold onto our own biased ideology,then nothing gets accomplished.

i do not subscribe to blankies capitalistic unrestricted free market position.
i have been learning much about the free market and it does have some substantial strengths in many regards.

the problems arise,in my opinion,in regards to societal responsibility.
unrestricted capitalism makes everything a commodity.
and some things should NEVER be considered a commodity.

so i am against the privatization of schools and commodifying children.
and for those of you who wish to berate me for my position allow me to point to our current prison system:prisoners=commodity

now by me saying this does NOT automatically mean i am in support of our current education system.
i am not.

the system we have now is a bloated and stagnating beast which does little to educate and everything to indocrinate and create obedient workers.

and who is blamed for all this?
the teachers!
of course!
bind their hands,gag their mouths,stifle their creativity and crush their imagination.

and THEN turn around and say "there...theres your problem.the teachers".

so @ blankfist is not entirely off the mark when he infers or implies that it is government that is at fault.

because they are.

the real question is why?
now i am wading into postulation waters here but this is what i suspect.
1.the american government nor corporations wish to have a truly educated and informed citizenry with critical thinking skills and the ability to consume data and form rational conclusions.
people with those abilities will always challenge power.

they would rather have a docile and submissive public that does not question authority.
best get em while they are young.

so it doesnt matter if the schools are privatized or publicly funded.
they BOTH seek the same results and will BOTH be/are equally corrupt.

and most likely BOTH will blame the teachers for a perceived failure.

because BOTH will ignore,either knowingly or unknowingly,the systematic failure of HOW they teach children.

no longer is art taught.
nor civics (at least not where i live),
nor the humanities.
they are teaching these kids to be systems managers,not free-thinkers.

i believe that education all the way up and through to higher education should be a public responsibility.the investment will pay dividends greater than anything put IN to the system.
i am not going to list them all,just think about what a well educated citizen can bring to table.
see:finland

because at its heart,its essence,is not society a collective practice in community?
there are some things that should never be socialized.
education is not one of them.

money is not the problem.
teachers are not the problem.
its the SYSTEM and how it teaches,that is the problem.

remove the politicians and the special interest from the equation and allow the actual educators to do their jobs.

instead we have turned teachers into baby-sitters and schools into factories of the banal.

what a disgrace.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

@rychan I have heard police psychologists (or whatever is the right term) say if you want to stop these horrendous mass killings, do NOT give publicity to the killers.

That is the single most important thing to do -- much more effective than gun control.

And yet we clambor to see their faces, know who they are. Newscasts capture eyes, newspapers and magazines sell. And we have free speech and a free media (except to the extent it is driven by the profit motive in small and also systematic ways.)

As for terrorists -- I think @Quboid is right on in general. Still, terrorists aren't ideological machines, they are human beings too. I suspect this kind of publicity is seductive to them, also. It is icing on the terror cake, though, not the cake itself I suspect.

Or something like that.

What's going on with schools?

Chronic underfunding, systematic repression of minorities and poor people, a government run by the wealthy, of the wealthy and for the wealthy that ignores the problems elsewhere in society.