@newtboy

i think what bcglorf is suggesting,and correct me if i am wrong bc,is that the ideological intolerance that is permeating the far left,and creeping into the current media narrative...is turning people away from the left and driving them further right.

that how the ultra-left deals with criticism by labeling ALL criticism as an attack,and not a functioning dynamic of dialogue,is counter-productive and again..drives people further right.

so what is a moderate to do?

on the alt-right they have a choice of a grotesque and vulgar racist political philosophy akin to the "aryan supremacy" of the 30's dressed up as nationalism and patriotism.

and on the alt-left they have an equally grotesque group who subvert freedoms and liberties all in the name of "equality" and "tolerance".while single-handedly being the most intolerant of them all.

fascists to the left of me..
fascists to the right..
and here i am..
stuck in the middle...

I do agree the police likely could and should have done more, as they have in the past, but I missed something else here. What about the right wing militias?
There were hundreds of camo wearing, AK toting militia members there (from out of town) that CLAIMED they only came along to keep the peace (not to menace), but I have yet to see a single instance where one or more of them made a single move to actually keep the peace. Instead, I have seen them used as human shields for Nazis who attack people then run behind the wall of guns for protection...then repeat. Clearly, unless that's more misdirection/narrative (which could be proven with a few videos of them actually keeping the peace and stopping Nazi violence and protecting counter protesters), the militia members were also doing their best to be setting the whole thing up to guarantee it turned into a 2 party riot...a riot where only their side was armed to the teeth...right? /grin

Side note...why is it so often missed that these people are so dumb they think they can be patriotic and Nazi confederates at the same time? I would counter that supporting and idolizing the confederacy is akin to a Syrian supporting and idolizing Daesh. It was a movement who's main objective was the destruction of the United States. If ever there was a more anti-American, unpatriotic group, I've not heard of them.

Voting republiklan if you are not in the 1% is at best a form of suicide and at worse akin to being a good German citizen during hitler's time in power.

@newtboy

"There is no publicly available PROOF that Trump himself colluded to steal the election....yet."

and when i see actual proof i shall adjust my opinion accordingly.

seymour hersh was the journalist who debunked and exposed the fabricated narrative of the assad regime using sarin gas against the syrian people.

that was in 2013.

and i think you need to differentiate between an institution and an individual.
there have been individual analysts who have come out and openly spoken against the current narratives being put forth by their respective intelligence institutions.

not trying to be a dick here,but i think you are painting with too broad a brush.

we actually agree FAR more than disagree.
the difference is i am demanding evidence not politically motivated speculation by agencies who have proven themselves to be extremely deceitful when it serves their interests.

and i refuse to recognize a corporate media outlet which puts profit above all else as a credible "news" source simply because it appeals to my dislike and disgust at our current sitting president.

james o'keefe is a slimeball,and breitbart a rag that appeals to the most base,and biased of us,but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

and to even attempt to give either any validity or credence is akin to accepting a big giant bowl of feces simply because it smells a tad less worse than the other.

still two bowls of shit to chose from....and i refuse both.

so when you say you disagree with me,you really don't.
you are just accepting that "less" smelly bowl of shit.

and hey,you may have chosen correctly,and it may all be true.
i will be the first to congratulate you on being right.

and then they will impeach trump,and then we all get to enjoy president mike pence.

now think on THAT little nugget for awhile.
good luck sleeping.....

how did this thread steer into climate change waters?
heh...god i love this site,and i love all you fuckers as well!

i don't really understand the rehashing of the election,trump is president.it is a done deal.

which is probably why i am struggling with the hillary diehards.politics is not a binary equation,so stop acting like it IS,and for the love of god stop with the condescension directed at people who did not vote YOUR way.ya'all are acting like we are your wayward dog who just took a giant dump on your carpet.

just LOOK at what you have done! LOOK at it! bad dog..baaaad dog.

@Stormsinger and @MilkmanDan were kind enough to share who they voted for,but they should not be put in a position to defend their vote.their vote,their choice and their right.

you may disagree,and that is fine,but to place all the blame on them,and their "like-minded compatriots" is arrogant,presumptuous and condescending.the reason hillary lost is not simply due to a few small holdouts.there are a myriad of reasons,and in my opinion,hillary should take most of the blame.

and what is this purity test @bareboards2 ?
do you mean a person standing by their principles?
remaining steadfast in their moral values?
showing us all that they would rather lose,than give up one ounce of integrity?

are you seriously criticizing people for holding to their own standards of morality and decency?

politics is not binary,there a many mitigating factors and political affilliation is only one aspect.

i have seen friends who voted for trump,and were extremely vocal about their support in the run up to election day,only to become eerily silent the further we got into trumps presidency.many of these people had voted for obama..TWICE..they wanted change.were desperate for change,and now they are finding out,that change may not be what they were expecting.

because the trump presidency is going to one helluva horror show,but there are also positives to consider.it is not a total loss.

i have the seen the very same people who have ridiculed and berated fundamentalist christians for being ideologically rigid,and philosophically immovable.turn around and express the exact same rigidity,and binary thought processes when it comes to their girl hillary clinton.

i was talking the other day with a man i highly respect and admire,who flippantly and casually called me a racist.
my crime?
i had the audacity to criticize obama.
which he doubled down and accused me of being sexist for not supporting hillary,and being critical of her as well.

how is this NOT ideological rigidity?
that to critically examine two prominent public figures automatically equates to:racism and sexism.

this is the metric that i see so many hillary supporters use when dealing with someone that they may disagree.this is a cheap,ill thought and ultimately WEAK counter to valid criticisms.

at what point do hillary supporters stop labeling other people the most vile of terms,simply because they did not step into line with THEIR thinking,and begin to examine the very REAL problems that both the hillary campaign,and the DNC,created for themselves?

or is everybody simply a racist and sexist?
that's it..no discussion.

this is akin to the fundamentalist christian labeling anybody who disagrees with their religion,or has brought up solid criticisms,as being an agent of satan.

" i do not like what you are saying about hillary,so therefore you must be a sexist".

the easiest,and most human,thing we do when faced with information and/or criticism that is in direct opposition to our long held beliefs.is to demonize the person making those claims,and therefore silence any further disruption to our own subjective belief system.

so when i talk about "insulated bubbles",and "echo chambers".that right there is what i am referring to,and it is dangerous.

i refuse to judge anybody on how they voted.they had their reasons,and i may even disagree with those reasons,but they have a right to their vote and who am i to judge them?

rehashing the election,or assigning blame based on ideological differences,accomplishes nothing.the REAL work starts now.trump is in office,and he is gearing up to be an unmitigated disaster.

so get involved.head to your next town hall meeting and speak your piece.start to connect with the political movements in your area and start to put pressure on your local representative.

i think we can all agree that trump is awful on so many levels,but to witness the american people become so politically engaged,so politically active,more active than they have been in decades.it really is inspiring,and all this is due to trump.

if hillary had won,would we see the same kind of newly energized,and politically active public?

i don't think so.

so let us stop with the rehashing.
stop with the blaming.
and get off our asses,step outside our own little,insulated echo chamber and start to engage.

don't know how to step outside your own bubble?
there is an app for that:
https://videosift.com/video/it-is-time-to-pop-your-social-media-echo-chamber-bubble

*oh,and even though i may have alluded to who i voted for.let me state clearly that i voted for hillary.i stick by my dislike of the "lesser of two evils" but come on...trump in the white house?

yeeesh....

@newtboy
ha! i tend to agree,but my example was just one of many.

now half of the women who stated they just wanted to be friends,remained exactly that:friends,but the other half always culminated in something akin to the situation i wrote about.

some people are just too egocentric,and are blinded by their own self-centered bullshit.

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

No sir. Not yet at least. That's nothing (edit:noting, stupid spell check) that his saying he's the sole source for truth is akin to their MO, and he should not repeat it, even jokingly, imo.

You seem to have missed the first half of the post, where I mentioned I wanted to Upvote for the reasons you mention.

Jimmy is moving from comedy to news commentary online, it seems. News commentary is what Beck and Jones do, btw....just saying. ;-)

I do agree, corporate media, which all buys their news from the same few biased outlets, are little more than propaganda sources and pablum these days. One more reason to be sad/outraged about pbs losing it's meager public funding.

@newtboy
that's what you took away from this?
jimmy dore is akin to glenn beck and alex jones?

ok,not gonna judge.

i thought the real take away,in my opinion,was a journalist was taken to task for being lazy and uncritically accepting the current corporate media narrative,and gets a thrashing from an independent journalist from canada.a polite and soft spoken thrashing,but a thrashing just the same.

eve bartlett has been doing some amazing work in regards to syria,and exposing the lies and manipulations of corporate media.

jimmy dore is a comedian,i am just a loser nobody who comments on the internet,but we all come to our own conclusions.

and i no longer give corporate media any authority,because of their utter and complete failure to inform.

i question any and everything that they attempt to spin as "truth".

If you're going to bring rationality and logic into the laws of religions, we can get nowhere.
I agree, logically the laws make no sense, but neither does an invisible sky daddy who's all love, and wrath, infallible but infinitely confusing, all knowing but constantly testing us anyway with torturous tests, capable of the impossible daily but never performs in public, etc. Being irrational when thought through doesn't invalidate it, by the rules of religion. It just means you don't comprehend the mysterious plan that will, miraculously, make it work in the future. Claiming logic demands you interpret the words to mean nearly the opposite of their clear meaning is akin to claiming to know the mind of God, or to know better than God...neither is allowed.

It clearly said different:
"until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"
NOT "until I die". Earth sure still exists, (not sure about heaven, but it said "and") so every letter of the law is in effect, and anyone teaching different is thought of as "the least" in heaven. I found that indisputable by reading it, it was pretty clear on that to me.

Edit: It's like you're saying they read the words of God, think them through and see they lead to disaster, so say "God didn't mean what he said, he just wants to make us think". I disagree with the contention that that interpretation makes sense....and if it did I would suggest that Aesop is a much better teacher.

I find the reddit thread to be more logical. I pretty much tossed out credibility for the video, and the freethought link, when I noticed their primary source were people from the 'Delta Paranormal Project'. Plus, I mean, statements like "...Mississippians know better than to taste the bitter fruit fertilized with the blood of atrocity." and "excruciating conditions akin to Nazi concentration camps" don't exactly lend themselves to rational discourse.

I believe we did create camps to most likely protect the former slaves from a hostile populace of southerners angry over the loss of the war and the freeing of the slaves. There is a good likelihood that 1000 or so freed slaves died from conditions in those camps. I can almost guarantee that if they had been left to wander the area unprotected, you would have likely been able to walk across the Mississippi River on the bodies of dead former slaves killed by a vengeful local populace.

Nothing is ever simple. I'm just not properly explaining what I was saying -- Jon Stewart went off and did his public speaking, crowd organizing thing with this belief in something that he couldn't quite define. He lost his mojo, in a way, saw that he was naked, bereft of his staff. Any talking/figure head with a staff of writers or information feeders can be comparable to other leaders of a similar make up. Trump and Stewart are reality tv stars of a similar make up.

Dag suggested that the writers of the Daily Show are what created Jon Stewart as we know hom, and so I ran with the idea that he, like the figurehead and reality star, Donald Trump, are products of other people's opinions -- this, when left to their own devices, while successful entertainers, they realize the emperor's clothes are transparent and now they have to rely on their own smaller slice of knowledge. Not that Stewart is dumb, but Stewart without writers and correspondents, is a similar archetype to Trump. Stewart's writers and correspondents, including the man whose show he is on in this clip, are akin to the media that Donald Trump treats like his writing staff. But instead of leaving the Daily Show, Trump is leaving *most* of the media, revealing he is not as knowledgeable without his sources.

Anyway, I was following the logic as laid down by dag's logic for why Jon isn't as funny or put together. I also know that good leaders put themselves in other people's shoes before giving advice to other leaders. Stewart MUST do this because he is a decent figurehead, but Trump doesn't -- that's why the media questions him on what biographies he is reading; leaders are supposed to put themselves into their rivals AND heros shoes as a matter of critical self analysis -- so, Stewart is speaking to the media almost as if he is also putting himself in Trump's shoes and speaking about how his own writing staff and correspondent's left him and succeeded.

Stewart has a 4 year contract with HBO. He will have the structure and writing teams he needs. Trump should utilize the media, including books and newspapers, and follow the subtext Jon laid out here.

Edited for spelling, grammatical errs and additional context. Done editing.

I feel like this leads directly into the Kids in Hall sketch about businessmen being akin to lost puppies that can be adopted and then returned to the wild businessman world, to be back with their own kind doing businessman things like exchanging business cards:

https://youtu.be/TvFhoqN597k

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

Welp, here we go. I don't believe in forbidden words, but we do have a rule against hate speech - lest we turn into a Youtube comment thread.

There's a reason why VideoSift has at least slightly more intelligent commentary than Youtube - we do care about what you write here and always want you to consider that there are humans hanging on the ends of keyboards writing comments.

VideoSift is also akin to a club, a very loose one (we let anybody in) but we reserve the right to kick you out if you violate our rules.

Gman, although I would say you have contributed a great deal of controversial but worthwhile commentary to this community, the line has been crossed.

VideoSift is not your venue for free speech. We have rules and we live by them.

With much deliberation and consideration, I hereby ban Gorillaman from VideoSift. May Siftbot have mercy on your soul.

It's not clear yet how many items are using RFID. They say they are using "computer vision, sensor fusion, and deep learning" akin to what is used in self-driving cars.

So there are some concerns if you pickup an item then put it back in the wrong place, will it detect it was still left in the store, or will it charge you? Putting it back in the right spot, refunds you, but it's not obvious otherwise.

We really need to know more from the Amazon employees that are using it.

It sounds a lot like Minority Report style stuff going on, and I think it is more a tech demo than a full concept they'll carry out in mass. The information on the path the customer takes, what they get and all that is probably worth a ton, and helps offset other costs with the system... though most of those costs are offset by having fewer employees... We are quickly reaching what CGP Grey noted in his video *relate=http://videosift.com/video/Humans-Need-Not-Apply where we need less and less people to do the lower end jobs... and those shelves look like they can be filled from the back, which is easier on robots.