Here's the full trailer for the movie... http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=9634&where=index

Great point by Reza Azlan at the end about the nature of religion.

really minor *nsfw on language

They're mixing politics with religion. Fun (read: "noxious") mix.

This video has been marked NSFW (called by gold star member Krupo)

Krupo, in my opinion, and I don't say this lightly, I think you've crossed a line by calling nsfw on this video. There is no vulgarity, nudity or anything else offensive here that warrants that tag. You've crossed over into censorship. I'm spitting fire mad right now, so I'll contain my remarks by saying that you're out of line and setting a very bad precedent here, and that you're abusing the nsfw invocation, which was not put in place to censor ideas and dialogue.

There is an "ass" and a "bullshit" in there, blankman - which is not exactly "work safe".

I don't see any evidence that Krupo was trying to censor you. If he wanted to do that, he could've done something much more drastic than tagging it NSFW.

hmmm, I think that it is probably safe for work, and that the real blankman might be right about it. If you guys want to send this to the blog for further discussion I would support that. That said, the video was excellent. Thanks for posting it.

Sorry therealblankman, I didn't mean to offend, let alone censor!

In my mind nsfw isn't censorship but simply a warning in case you have kids around while you're sifting. Censorship action IMHO would be a discard command or debate concerning one.

And the the swearing that did happen was just one instance: that's why I was careful to mention "really minor" when invocating; I use that for a one-off instances of swearing (I'm a strong propnent of nsfw = might include one or two words you might not want the kiddies to hear). I should've made it perfectly clear by citing the time - I wouldn't see anything wrong with running the whole vid for a kid, and just skipping the b.s. line (which is around 6:30-ish, IIRC).

Hope that clears thing up.

Well, I guess I misunderstood. It appears above the original reason you cited for the nsfw invocation was that they were mixing politics and religion, which is what upset me so much. Without such a mixing, we wouldn't have so many great discussion threads here! Thanks for clearing it up.

That said, let's adopt James' suggestion and *blog this.

Woops, sorry, I should be more careful. I was just making a (lame) cryptic joke about the social etiquette rule to not talk about either at the dinner table - and here they are talking about both. It was meant to be a completely unrelated thought, but I can totally see how you would've seen them as part of a whole, sorry again for causing the confusion.

If anything I love seeing them mixed together in lively & witty debates.

Suggestion for the Sift: can we distinguish between "real" nsfw and a Videosift "PG" rating? Having two seperate levels would be worthwhile to distinguish between one-off swears (i.e., the "thinking of the children" reaction) vs. full-on nsfw profanity-laced-Shatner-roast-ish tirades?

Sending this video to the blog for discussion (sent by gold star member therealblankman)

So although it's not (yet?) an official invocation, I'm going to use *PG from now on in situations like this.

For those of you not familiar with the American movie rating system, PG stands for "Parental Guidance suggested", and is rather apt: it's a subjective call as some parents are more permissive while others are more "sheltering" than others.

I could tell Krupo was nsfw'ing because of the "really minor" comment and just added the additional comment as an aside, and I also guessed that's what was causing the misunderstanding.

Things like this with very light profanity are hard to judge, but since NSFW doubles as a NSFK (with K=kids) filter, I don't think it is too over-the-line to point out that there is any type of profanity. But how do we define "profanity?" Where do we draw the line? It's tough to say given the subjective nature of the matter, but if there is nothing else wrong with a video but a little profanity muttered here and there, perhaps we should stick to something like the "7 dirty words" rule, if the word can't be spoken on television, it should be flagged NSFW.

At least, that's my take on it.

My view of NSFW is anything than can't appear on network primetime. I guess it depends on where you work as to the how not safe it is. There are plenty of videos that your boss would can you if they knew you were watching. Heck you visiting this site is ground for termination in my opinion.

So, the "would I want a 10 yr old to watch this" criteria is a little new. At any rate, I don't think a over-zealous nsfw is a problem. Most people don't pay attention to if there is a nsfw icon or not.

"My view of NSFW is anything than can't appear on network primetime."

Well we did see that cops ass on nypd blue like 7 years ago. I personally have a really lose interpretation of nsfw. As far as cussing goes I pretty much only consider fuck / cunt / felcher etc... to be nsfw.

If people are serious about wanting to open videosift up to younger people I could see the pg being a decent idea, but I think most reasonable parents would probably still want to watch what their kids are watching. Although tv ratings haven't helped the most recent generation much.

boy ..... the terms i'm learning on VS over the past few days!! *blush* lmao

bill maher is on HBO which is a paid subscription in addition to regular cable ... so technically, this isn't shown on regular primetime tv. BUT ... with that being said ... regular primetime tv now allows: ass and bitch.

as for NSFW being similar to NSFK ... VS (or similar video sites) are not part of my children's internet repretoire due to their age and will not be until they are at the end of their teen years!

joedirt, I have to say, I'm glad I don't work for you.

My 'crossing line' for going *PG is things I wouldn't want a 3 - 9 year old to see (those ages are a 'more or less' - it depends on how warped the kid is, I suppose).

Sandy Rios is an idiot seriously. Like really. Like come on. If you are captured in combat you will say you are muslim, pinko, gay or whatever to survive... Her arguement that christians have no choice in that is ridiculous. I want her to be captured in combat and see what she says then.

Bill Maher's point at the end is excellent. Why is this still at the blog? This needs to go back to the queue.

Ok, so we are decided. nsfw invocation is to be used in case anyone with super-powers finds it objectionable. No bitching, it's just a little yellow icon. *return

Returning this video (Returned by gold star member joedirt)

Great post. How sad is it that we can send a man to the moon.. and gigabits of information as bits of light, yet the world still follows leaders (ours included) who abuse religion for power?

“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.”
-- Isaac Asimov

great quote winkler! *thumbs up*

"God has no religion" ~Mahatma Gandhi

farhad, I direct your attention to this excellent article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0816/p01s01-woiq.html

My point is that captors can just as soon kill you for a 'fake' conversion... you really need to keep your wits about you to survive such an ordeal.

Well then you have to be smart Like Joan of Arc, see am busting scripture on your video picture:

The trial record demonstrates her remarkable intellect. The transcript's most famous exchange is an exercise in subtlety. "Asked if she knew she was in God's grace, she answered: 'If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.'" The question is a scholarly trap. Church doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace. If she had answered yes, then she would have convicted herself of heresy. If she had answered no, then she would have confessed her own guilt. Notary Boisguillaume would later testify that at the moment the court heard this reply, "Those who were interrogating her were stupefied." In the twentieth century George Bernard Shaw would find this dialogue so compelling that sections of his play Saint Joan are literal translations of the trial record."

LOL!

*latenight

Adding video to channels (Latenight) - requested by eric3579.

*religion
*wtf
*talks
*1sttube

Adding video to channels (1sttube, Religion, Talks, Wtf) - requested by EDD.

Religion: The Other White Lie.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.