Look, here's the thing--even if there was a perfect 3rd party candidate and even if you could convince Americans to vote for them over the Democratic/Republican candidates, with Congress controlled by Democrats and Republicans (who seem more hellbent than ever on partisanship) the 3rd party President wouldn't be able to get anything meaningful done anyway.

America doesn't need a viable 3rd party candidate, it needs a viable 3rd party (and 4th, etc.)--one that people believe in enough to help win a decent number of seats in the House and Senate as well as in state elections. Until such a party appears, a vote for a 3rd party candidate really is "spoiler" vote.

Honestly, if Bernie just broke away from the Democratic party and started a new one I think there would be a shot at creating such a viable 3rd party but I understand exactly why he didn't--such a split at the current time might actually guarantee the Republicans the presidency even with their current clown candidate.

*dead

The uploaders have made it so that the embed code no longer functions. Mirror?

Thanks for the promote!

Thanks man!

So, is this being detected by Netflix? Because the VPN service I've been using is getting geoblocked lately and I'm looking for a replacement...

I'm going to go ahead and *quality this because there are so very few music videos these days that transcend their music and could be taken as works of art on their own.

So, a Reddit user named gTechIII gave a pretty good breakdown of one plausible interpretation of the video:

"I'm pretty sure the point was that all parties are having intense reactions to ideas which are at their core completely inconsequential and empty.

The men were responding to base desires with very little modern point.

The women were reacting to what they thought was symbolism, but in reality was just a mash of common symbols in an incoherent mass.

The director was having an existential crisis about his art's reception in youtube comments.

In the end, we're all responding to caricatures instead of communicating effectively with each other."

It's really an interesting video. Apparently the director's other vids are worth a watch as well.

EDIT: The director's web page has a whole treatment for the video describing what he was thinking. Check it out.

Awesome comment. I wish I could upvote it twice. I threw up a little in my mouth watching the grandstanding going on here and how apparently most Sifters are eating it up.

Fraud? Cross-selling is perfectly legal and in fact practiced regularly in many industries besides banking (like when Best Buy tries to get you to purchase a protection plan for any electronics you buy at their store). If she has an issue with it, as a legislator she is free to bring a bill to the floor to do something about it. The problem is, she didn't give a shit about cross-selling until she realized she was going to have an opportunity to stump for future votes in these hearings and she apparently doesn't give a shit about it now because despite those strong-worded pleas for action she's done nothing personally to make anything she said happen.

Stumpf should give up his money? He isn't the one who opened fake Wells Fargo accounts nor is there any evidence he directed his employees to do so. And as he tried to explain before she cut him off to grandstand some more, those fake accounts only represent 1% of the total cross-selling that happened, which means the stock price was not unduly inflated--people were in fact opening of their own volition more accounts with Wells Fargo than any other bank and Wall Street loved them for it.

The real issue here is that there were not adequate controls in place to prevent the fake accounts from being created in the first place (or detected quickly after being created). And for that Stumpf probably does have some small amount of responsibility, although it sounds to me more like whoever was in charge of compliance is the person who likely should be the one left holding the bag.

But let's not let reality get in the way of a politician's dreams of future offices.

@eric3579

Well done and well deserved! Thanks for making the Sift a much friendlier place.

@ChaosEngine

I think we're getting a bit far off from the original topic, so I'll try to stay focused on my original point: you're still saying this guy in the video was presented with evidence and refused to change his mind.

He wasn't.

He was asked a rhetorical question to which he spontaneously replied in the way that he felt would be most in line with the thinking of his political party since he knew he was going to be on TV. His throwaway answer triggered your angry throwaway comment and here we are, with you apparently unable to grasp the irony of how your demonizing a group of "wooly thinking" bogeymen (who according to you are responsible for slavery, homophobia, and the drug war among other things) is completely mirroring the rhetoric of all the people in the video who are demonizing the BLM movement and the rhetoric of Trump in general regarding Mexicans, Muslims, etc.

You can see how well that approach is working for the Republicans, so it's baffling to me why you'd take that approach in dealing with something that is a real problem--convincing people to change their minds about beliefs that are deeply held but also based on what others would say is faulty reasoning (but seems perfectly reasonable to the person holding the belief). I think you'll find, along with the Republicans, that this approach of demonizing the "other" (who exists only in your mind--when was the last time you met someone who actually believed they were possessed by demons when they caught a cold?) does nothing to solve problems but in fact exacerbates them instead.

And that concludes all I have to say on the subject. I'll read whatever response you post but won't be replying in this thread again.

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

*dead

@newtboy
@ChaosEngine

It's incredibly chilling to me that your comments got any upvotes at all. Yeah, I get it's a joke. But in the current political climate where people (i.e. Trump and his frighteningly large number of supporters) are actually talking about walling off an entire nation to keep out "undesirables" and killing the relatives of terrorists in some misguided attempt at revenge, it's a joke in poor taste.

Furthermore the anger behind the joke (and there is clearly anger since you guys are joking about sterilizing and killing people) is misguided as well--you put a camera in front of any political supporter and try to goad them into saying something that is clearly in direct opposition to what their party's line is and you're going to get a bullshit answer, regardless of whether you're interviewing a Democratic or Republican.

On that note, it would be interesting to see this same bit at the DNC with the reporter asking questions about gun control and the NRA--I'm sure you'd get some great clips of people being uninformed and stubbornly resistant to facts as well. And make no mistake-- what we're seeing here are the "best of" clips that some editor picked out to show Republicans in the worst possible light. I would really love to see the raw footage and see how the people they chose not to show on TV reacted during the interviews.

Man, Marvel is just killing it between the movies, the Netflix Original shows, and Agents of Shield. This looks like it will be great.