eia, because nobody was forcing him to drive that fast on bad roads

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, February 27th, 2012 1:50am PST - promote requested by original submitter Porksandwich.

Holy shit, I didn't believe the title when it said "disintigrates"... Clearly I should have.

It's quite frightening to see what a semi can do and how people treat them on the roads.

Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

Shitty post.

*water because there is snow

*happy because the car manufacturer gets to sell another vehicle

Adding video to channels (Happy, Water) - requested by BoneRemake.

Thing to note about NCAP its only tested at 40mph.

Last frames he activated his jetpack.

>> ^sepatown:

Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).
Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.


I disagree, but I'll leave it up to people who've been here longer or whoever to decide.

It's not entertaining to me. It's shocking and demonstrates in less than a minute why you should be really cautious on the road and be very wary and respectful of semi trucks even in good conditions.

As I think it's relevant to the discussion and it was left as a little quasi threat on my profile.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
Disagree with what ? your intent or interpretation of the events in the video are completely void because of this statement " Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera. ?

Is clearly is in violation of the posted rules. I'd make a big stink about it if it was 2 pm and not 2 am. I'll do it in the morning


Please do make a big stink, this site has a lot of rules that don't get enforced until someone gets a bug up their ass about it. And without enforcement whose to know what videos are allowed or not when my video CLOSELY resembles some of the videos I've linked below. And I'll say right now that you putting extra tags on my video was in poor taste and mocks the events of the video. I don't think you are the right person to be making judgements on my videos when you can mock the video with those tags.


These are the videos I found in the first 20 pages of the "death" channel.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Rare-amateur-video-of-Challenger-disaster-25-years-later - Has a short intro screen and a exit screen. No news coverage, no documentary claims. It would fall under your rule, yet it's been voted very high up there and no one complained.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Destroyed-In-Seconds - This video was taken down by youtube because it showed a guy dieing in it. The comments on THIS SITE even reflect it. No one ever questioned it.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Marines-Urinate-on-Dead-Afghans - I can't confirm those men on the ground are dieing or dead. It shows corpses, wounds and all being defiled for ENTERTAINMENT of the troops. I'd classify this as snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Footage-of-Perm-Nightclub-Fire - Shows a building where 100+ people died.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Indy-500-winner-killed-in-15-car-accident - Shows the tv footage of a car crash where the driver died. No informative news network or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Deadly-plane-crash-at-Reno-Nevada-air-show - Shows a plane crash, no news or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Molten-metal-seen-dripping-moments-before-WTC2-collapses - Shows footage of WTC where we know people were dieing inside. We can't see them dieing, but that rule still applies. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Lucky-Montana-Cop-Escapes-Death - Police office shoots a man to death. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Main-Stage-collapses-at-Indiana-State-Fair Stage collapses people die. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Sigh-police-beat-a-man-dead - Police kill a guy on film. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Craziest-and-most-awesome-animal-compilations-of-the-web - I didn't watch this one all the way through. Video Submitter claims death occurs in it. Could be animal, could be people. You watch it and decide if it's snuff...I saw some animals attacking people but never saw the outcome to tell if they were dead or not.

Did the people/person in the car live?

Hard to believe anyone could have survived that. This is pushing the envelope. Most of the examples Porksandwich links above are of significant news-worthy events (whether or not the video itself is actual news coverage). There are certainly a few in that list, though, that I'd argue don't belong here. The one yanked from YT for being snuff seems pretty obvious. I'm glad I didn't see that.

I translated the page after the snuff comment came up, the driver died. I had read the rules however long ago, but so many videos on here seem to break it now that it's been brought up as this video breaking it. So if the video is found to be in violation, I'd at least like to know why this one is and the others aren't...and I only went through 20 pages of listings in the death channel to get the results I got.

I agree that it breaks the wording of the rule when you get to the last line, but that the rule is not being applied by it's wording to a number of videos that are as bad if not worse than this video. I also disagree that this should be considered as "entertainment", nothing is there to make light of or create any amusement or enjoyment for a normal adult. The tag modifications are mocking of course, but I didn't add happy to it.

At the very least, clarification is needed as many long term members both up and down voted the video.

You're absolutely right that the snuff rule is not applied consistently. With the exception of a few months here and there, I haven't been around regularly for a couple of years. But iirc, every once in a while someone would notice a video like this and suggest that it be discarded, there'd be a protracted argument about that video and several others as well as the rule itself, and eventually one or more vids would get discarded. I'm kind of on the fence about this one, especially if some of the others stay, but I wouldn't be upset if it was ruled out.

We could poll the community to see what they think. Actually, that's already been done when they voted for this video. The community supports this video more than 4 to 1.

People don't have to click on videos that are too realistic or educational for them. I wouldn't recommend they go into a career in medicine or many areas of engineering, where human lives are often on the line. If they insist on clicking on the video and then starting an argument, they're just looking to censor and inconvenience others' reasonable and educational tastes.

Side impacts are nasty. Don't think you can expect to survive a collision like that regardless of your cars safety rating. I don't think I would have driven at those speeds in that weather even with the right tyres, especially given the lack of a crash barrier along the divider.

*discuss

More discussion. What are rules if I have to follow them but you do not ? ? ?

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by BoneRemake.

>> ^BoneRemake:

discuss
More discussion. What are rules if I have to follow them but you do not ? ? ?


Speaking of which, people have been banned for abusing channel assignments before. This obviously does NOT belong in the happy channel.

*return. A lot of points proven

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by BoneRemake.

*death
*water
*fail
*eia
*promote the blood lust !
*promote the destruction!

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by BoneRemake.

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by BoneRemake.

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by BoneRemake.

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by BoneRemake.

I find meatbag BoneRemake to be an inadequate command-giver - ignoring all requests by BoneRemake.

Fuck.

*nochannel

*death
*water
*fail
*eia
*promote the blood lust !
*promote the destruction!

This video has been removed from all channels (Eia, Happy, Engineering, Wheels, Fail, Water, Death) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by BoneRemake. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, February 28th, 2012 4:50am PST - promote requested by BoneRemake.

Adding video to channels (Death, Eia, Fail, Water) - requested by BoneRemake.

I would say that this is educational in the sense that it really shows just how quickly a car ride can turn into a disaster in winter. This really reinforces the fact that safe winter driving habits are a must. Thanks for the post.

My that is the most shocking thing I've seen in a while. I believe beyond the shock value it informs and warns. I've never really understood the snuff rule but I don't see why this shouldn't be on here. What would be ghoulish is if people enjoyed watching this or if it was posted for that intention. But that's not something that is easy to judge.

The value of the submission probably has to be judged on its own merits. One video at a time.

There were no bluging, blue cocks harmed in the making of this video.

It's chilling and shocking to think a human actually perished in that video and I just watched it happen. But, I should have known better. It's not like it was false advertising.

Definitely reinforces the importance of safe driving. I know it's easy sometimes to hope someone wipes out because of driving like a jackass, but I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

I was almost in an accident like this once. My girlfriend and I were driving through California near Modesto on a two-lane, 50 mph back-road in the dark. Our right front tire went over the line into what looked like more pavement but was actually soft, dry, desert dirt. We just barely kissed the line but it was enough to send us off the road towards a tree, my girlfriend over-corrected and brought us back on the road and into the oncoming lane. We passed through the space between two cars, went off the other side of the road, over-corrected again (because we were really just fishtailing at that point), drove back through oncoming traffic, sideways, and stopped in our original lane facing the wrong way.

I always think of that when I see car accident videos. That and the fact that we were driving an early Hyundai Accent, the kind that would've vaporized had we actually hit anything. For a few seconds there, floating in the space between two cars, my whole existence was entirely dependent on luck, or fate if you wish. It felt very weird, and a damn-sight unfair.

It's really easy to say that this guy was driving irresponsibly, or to say that one needs to respect semis, but it looks like he was going with the flow of traffic, maybe just a little faster. Those moments like this happen before you even know what's going on. Your tire brushing that little pile of melting snow can start a series of events that you have no control over. And driving slower than the rest of traffic can be just as dangerous, especially in the snow.

But I'm not trying to be preachy. The thing that really amazes me is that when people see these videos, we always tend to think of ourselves as being in the place of the driver who fucked-up. We could just as easily, however, be the other guy. Happens every day, all over the world. You're driving safely in your own lane, minding your own business, and all-of-a-sudden you're pink pate' getting spread nicely over a crispy metal cracker. Nothing you could've done. Driving is dangerous.

*dead

Invocations (dead) cannot be called by sillma because sillma is not privileged - sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo3W1z5_19s replacement.

Not sure how to add a backup, but I've replaced the video with another embed...can use sillma's as a backup.

This made me sad.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by jonny.

@Porksandwich
Snuff or not, it might be a good idea to put a clear warning in the description. Plenty of people would probably choose not to watch this if they knew what they were going to see.

The snuff rule has gradually gotten softer and softer, it seems. It used to be that anything depicting real deaths was forbidden unless it was of great historical value (eg: JFK assassination, 9/11). Later it was unless it was "important" (eg: soldiers gunning down civilians in Iraq). That was eventually used to justify posting ordinary murder and manslaughter by claiming we were helping bring the perpetrator to justice by spreading these videos around. These were often discarded after everyone had already seen them and argued about whether they belong here.

I'm not sure, but I think part of the problem has been that Videosift's advertisers' TOS say you can't have porn or snuff content. If that's the case, we can argue about the definition all we want and it won't make a lick of difference.

@xxovercastxx

See if that warning suffices, and if you think it needs more post an example.

The definition of snuff, and this sites definition are snuff are different. I can see the point of not having videos depicting rape/torture then murder or murder where murderer is clearly doing it for pleasure/satisfaction.

If the site enforced the rule to where it wasn't confusing to less experienced submitters, I would have no doubts as to what's appropriate. Snuff has always meant "murder for fun" to me, and none of these videos exist here. The accidental deaths, often taking place in vehicles/planes/trains/buildings are being submitted and kept on this site for months and years. Often submitted by high ranked, long term members.......so I can't help but feel like the stink over this video wouldn't have happened if I had a diamond or something by my name.

If it's found inappropriate, I hope they review the videos I've linked above and see where the confusion lies.

@Porksandwich

I believe the vague rule about snuff is intentional though I don't understand why. Sometimes I think maybe dag prefers we all have a big argument every time someone dies on video rather than just having a clear rule that we can all understand.

@xxovercastxx

Welp, I'm trying to abide by the rules. If I get another submission with much stink over it, probably will just stop bothering. Not trying to be a dick over all this, but I've had one other video that had mistakes made against it by others (accidental, but nonetheless a mistake) that caused problems with the submission and I think I have less than 10 video submissions overall after 2 years. Probably tried to submit triple that but found the dupe at some stage during the submission processes or shortly after.

I like coming to the site and getting some interesting videos, but submitting is like having a job.

@Porksandwich @xxovercastxx The reason that it's left intentionally vague is that the only way we could make a hard and fast rule, is to ban it. Leaving it vague keeps it on a case by case basis and based on precedent. Some times overzealous users tend to shoot first and ask questions later, in that case, bring the issue to @dag or @lucky760 and it will be considered properly.

I hope you will stay active, porksandwich.

@Porksandwich: Because this video simply depicts an accident in which a person is fatally injured, it is breaking the Sift's snuff guideline and it should be discarded or killed.

Generally speaking, exceptions to the snuff rule are considered on a case-by-case basis and allowed for offering "reasonable" merit. (This is where the vagueness comes in.)

This video is not such an exception and will be removed, but knowing the protestant nature of Sifters, I'll send it up for a bit more *discussion first so everyone who's so inclined can have a chance to hang their knotted panties on a flagpole for all the Sift to see.

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by lucky760.

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue26/images/tel10.JPG

When I upvoted this video I did not even think about the possibility (probability) that someone died. When I saw @sepatown's comment I felt bad that I had not thought this thru before voting. I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

This video should be removed.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.


That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

yep yep yep!>> ^lucky760:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.

Going in the garbage, why not.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.


Well I'd just like to point out that a number of the videos I linked in a previous post, near all if not all of them depict(ed) scenes where people were dieing. Many if you follow them to their source have stories about how many died in the accident/event being shown in the video. I do not think the shuttle or WTC footage should be removed, but it does show scenes were people did not survive. And the building burning shows the fire that ended up killing 100+ people when it was all over.

Beyond the clear newsworthy events (WTC, Space Shuttle) what makes the other videos suitable? The soldiers peeing on corpses is much more graphic and in your face with the death aspect than this video is, since you can see the act happening with the corpses (hopefully dead at this point...hopefully) in view of the camera.

I just want some kind of acknowledgement that putting a news reporter before this video would not change the content of the video. Or a ticker bar at the bottom.....or a watermark in the video......the contents and happenings of the video would remain the same.

I see the plane crash video I linked to as exactly like this video. The person flying either had a hardware failure or mistake that caused him to nose dive into the ground. You know he died either on impact or shortly after. The only difference is one is a plane and one is a car. I know we can all put ourselves in the driver's seat of a car, but we can set ourselves apart from piloting due to lack of experience. This may account for the notation on this video, I want to identify whatever it is that this video has that set it apart from the others.

The police shootings are in the same scenario, but most us aren't cops. But most of them show poor choices that led up to it, and maybe we feel we wouldn't make those choices as a rational person...so the video is OK because it demonstrates a level of behavior that will result in your death that none of us feel we will reach. A car crash accident is not left up to willful choice in most cases.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

We're not perfect and as was mentioned this is a gray area. There are reasons given in each individual post why the examples you cited were included. Also, we've been around for six years - our culture is a living thing and evolving. With six years worth of video content you are going to find things that support or condemn your position.

We try for consistency and we try to follow the guidelines but citing precedence is my least favourite way of supporting a position on VideoSift. You'll always be able to cherry pick - and it sounds a little too much like "why are you picking on me?"

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.

Well I'd just like to point out that a number of the videos I linked in a previous post, near all if not all of them depict(ed) scenes where people were dieing. Many if you follow them to their source have stories about how many died in the accident/event being shown in the video. I do not think the shuttle or WTC footage should be removed, but it does show scenes were people did not survive. And the building burning shows the fire that ended up killing 100+ people when it was all over.
Beyond the clear newsworthy events (WTC, Space Shuttle) what makes the other videos suitable? The soldiers peeing on corpses is much more graphic and in your face with the death aspect than this video is, since you can see the act happening with the corpses (hopefully dead at this point...hopefully) in view of the camera.
I just want some kind of acknowledgement that putting a news reporter before this video would not change the content of the video. Or a ticker bar at the bottom.....or a watermark in the video......the contents and happenings of the video would remain the same.
I see the plane crash video I linked to as exactly like this video. The person flying either had a hardware failure or mistake that caused him to nose dive into the ground. You know he died either on impact or shortly after. The only difference is one is a plane and one is a car. I know we can all put ourselves in the driver's seat of a car, but we can set ourselves apart from piloting due to lack of experience. This may account for the notation on this video, I want to identify whatever it is that this video has that set it apart from the others.
The police shootings are in the same scenario, but most us aren't cops. But most of them show poor choices that led up to it, and maybe we feel we wouldn't make those choices as a rational person...so the video is OK because it demonstrates a level of behavior that will result in your death that none of us feel we will reach. A car crash accident is not left up to willful choice in most cases.

>> ^dag:

We're not perfect and as was mentioned this is a gray area. There are reasons given in each individual post why the examples you cited were included. Also, we've been around for six years - our culture is a living thing and evolving. With six years worth of video content you are going to find things that support or condemn your position.
We try for consistency and we try to follow the guidelines but citing precedence is my least favourite way of supporting a position on VideoSift. You'll always be able to cherry pick - and it sounds a little too much like "why are you picking on me?"


It seems like a valid thing to point out, especially when @Boise_Lib and @lucky760 both have come out against videos showing events where people died in the events of the video.

So perhaps I should say it. Why is this video being judged singly? I have brought the others up, they are sifted. I can not use the power commands to bring them into discussion alongside this one. Why are they not being discussed? What about them does not warrant discussion while this one does? The newness of this post? The content, as discussed seems fall within the range of the others. Im discarding this video at the end of this post, but the other videos which I saw prior to post this one here over my years on the site led me to believe that these kinds of videos were OK. I realize they were posted by people with symbols after their names, so perhaps that's the qualifier that gets them passed over, they seem to have been around the block a few times...so they must know what they were doing when they submitted their videos. I don't know how else to call attention to those videos portraying acceptance other than to call attention to them here where the discussion is taking place on death in videos.

And I have to wonder if someone who voted for the video had submitted it, marinara, chilaxe, slipperypete, ant, etc...if it would have gone to discussion. I'm not invoking their names, because if it was a big deal to them they would have posted here more recently on the topic and Im discarding it at this point...we'll see if it gets submitted in the future to the praise of all by someone with more juice.

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter Porksandwich.