This is more of an overly well mannered squirrel with low self esteem.

Really I should just take the peanut, oh golly, why don't I just. Oh nevermind I'll just. Hmmm, take the peanut? If only I were squirrel enough to take. Take the peanut? Oh my, oh Yes, I'll just. Take. The. PEANUT! ALLLL MIIINE.

I'm going to write a comment to express my approval of this video, how it reminds me of the other meta videos in this vein, and how I hope to see more. I'll then check my comment history periodically throughout the day hoping my self-esteem can be boosted by comment up-votes, but being sad knowing I'll get 1 if I'm lucky and most likely none. Then I'll try to convince myself I don't care what anyone thinks because I just want to put my thoughts out there even if no one reads it or agrees with me or is entertained by it, before looking for more videos I can attempt and fail to cleverly comment on, starting the whole torturous cycle all over again.

Feeling good about yourself and feeling entertained are not mutually exclusive.

I think hurting others or self-hurting is always a sign of self-hate. It's just not in my experience to see someone who really loves who they are as a person hurting other people on a regular basis. Mostly, healthy minded people dislike their own tendencies to hurt other people and actively avoid it.

So, IMO, anyone who habitually enjoys making other people feel worse, who chooses to adopt making other people feel bad as their style or identity or online character and sticks to it really dislikes themselves a lot.

Willingness to hurt others (or oneself) is the best yardstick I can think of for self-esteem.

Okay, maybe not Sexist, but then it's either Misogynist or someone has an incredibly low sense of self esteem and doesn't understand how a guy could possible have a relationship with a pretty woman.

I'm thinking either someone is jealous or has assumed themselves into a class they assume the woman is in - and is jealous.

I also gotta say, she must have self esteem issues if she thinks anyone would need to do much to "make her" beautiful.

And if you would like to listen to all these songs in this list on spotify
https://embed.spotify.com/?uri=spotify:user:126633862:playlist:6g85gv0Z2sU9Jq1DveZBwR

1. Cannonball - The Breeders
2. The New Pollution - Beck
3. Battle of Who Could Care Less - Ben Folds Five
4. Mrs. Robinson - The Lemonheads
5. Push Th' Little Daisies - Live - Ween, The Shit Creek Boys
6. Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth with Money in My Hand - Primitive Radio Gods
7. Queer - Garbage
8. Semi-Charmed Life - Third Eye Blind
9. Cut Your Hair (Remastered) - Pavement
10. In The Meantime - Spacehog
11. Undone -- The Sweater Song - Weezer
12. I Alone - Live
13. Got You (Where I Want You) - The Flys
14. One - U2
15. Jeremy - Pearl Jam
16. Stutter - Elastica
17. Not an Addict - K's Choice
18. The Beautiful People - Marilyn Manson
19. You Oughta Know - Alanis Morissette
20. Man In The Box - Alice In Chains
21. Soul To Squeeze - Red Hot Chili Peppers
22. Lithium - Nirvana
23. What's Up - 4 Non Blondes
24. Laid - James
25. Wynona's Big Brown Beaver - Primus
26. The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonite - R.E.M.
27. People Of The Sky - Sloan
28. Good - Better Than Ezra
29. Gel - Collective Soul
30. Zombie - The Cranberries
31. Girls And Boys - Blur
32. Dyslexic Heart - Paul Westerberg
33. Your New Cuckoo - The Cardigans
34. Get Off This - Cracker
35. A Long December- Counting Crows
36. Self Esteem - The Offspring
37. Don't Speak - No Doubt
38. Silently - That Dog

Bloody brilliant! dag you make my knees wobble, your talents know no bounds, thank you for your contribution to my self-esteem

And to sifters who have taken the time to come say congrats, you're fabulous! Much love and thanks to my homies, you knows who you is

Annnnnd to necrobeef, cheers for giving me the final push, I want your beard as a back scratch!!

From http://banbossy.com/

When a little boy asserts himself, he's called a “leader.” Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded “bossy.” Words like bossy send a message: don't raise your hand or speak up. By middle school, girls are less interested in leading than boys—a trend that continues into adulthood. Together we can encourage girls to lead.

The confidence
gap starts early.
Between elementary and high school, girls’
self–esteem drops 3.5 times more than boys’.

Bossy holds
girls back.
Girls are twice as likely as boys to worry that
leadership roles will make them seem “bossy.”

Girls get less
airtime in class.
They are called on less
and interrupted more.

I kept thinking that if women who spend so much time on their appearance had more time, they'd probably just watch TV or mess with Facebook.

As for the wage disparity -- I think that might be other reasons why women who spend so much time on their appearance make less money. I suspect that they are just not that smart, rely on their looks to get by, and/or probably have pretty low self esteem which interferes with their ability to work to their highest potential. I suspect that confident, busy women don't obsess on their bodies like that.

I also don't understand why videos like this have to turn into a competition in the comment stream. Women have things they have to do to break free of their unconscious choices. That's just a human fact. Why bring up men's unconscious choices, @Trancecoach? I know you are joking (you checked the box!). However every time a vid like this shows up, SOMEBODY brings up how tough the world is on men.

Yes. The world is tough on men. Make a video about it. Educate your fellows so they can break the chains of societal expectations.

Why insist that women talk about your challenges when they are talking about their own challenges. I don't understand why that comes up very single time. It flummoxes me.

Although maybe you truly were joking? Maybe you don't think the world is tough on men? I sure do. Your shortened life span compared to women is proof of that, I should think. The pressures that you list, even jokingly.... dang. I can't imagine what it is like to face that on a daily basis. It seems horrendous to me.

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 still think that open comments on the Internet are essential. As horrible as some may be, its still better than to censor people, who are simply venting there instead of sucking it up and eventually exploding in something more horrible than a fucking few letters.
People need to get more tolerant and need to have more self esteem and also think more before bursting out into a pile of emotions. Not everyone has a nice life, not everyone can afford the things they want, not everyone had much luck in life with anything. In a fucked up society like ours, you cant fix everything, and some fixes will make it even worse.
Ignoring bad things will only make them worse. Its that simple.

If you were an employer interviewing people for a job, would you hire the man @0:05 or @2:01 ?

While not the cure for alcoholism, I think this boosted his self-esteem, and gave him just enough confidence to try to turn his life around. Hopefully AA will help him stop drinking.

@enoch, thanks for your comments. I thought it better to respond directly to your profile than on the video, about which we're no longer discussing directly. Sorry for the length of this reply, but for such a complex topic as this one, a thorough and plainly-stated response is needed.

You wrote: "the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"? NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?"

The free market works best for any and all goods and services, regardless of their aim or purpose. Healthcare is no different from any other good or service in this respect.

(And besides, tell me why there's no money in preventative care? Do nutritionists, physical trainers/therapists, psychologists, herbalists, homeopaths, and any other manner of non-allopathic doctors not get paid and make profit in the marketplace? Would not a longer life not lead to a longer-term 'consumer' anyway? And would preventative medicine obliterate the need for all manner of medical treatment, or would there not still remain a need to diagnose, treat, and cure diseases, even in the presence of a robust preventative medical market?)

I realize that my argument is not the "popular" one (and there are certainly many reasons for this, up to and including a lot of disinformation about what constitutes a "free market" health care system). But the way to approach such things is not heuristically, but rationally, as one would approach any other economic issue.

You write "see where i am going with this? It's not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time."

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The purpose of the healthcare system is to provide the most advanced medical service and care possible in the most efficient and affordable way possible. Only a free competitive market can do this with the necessary economic calculations in place to support its progress. No matter how you slice it, a socialized approach to healthcare invariably distorts the market (with its IP fees, undue regulations, and a lack of any accurate metrics on both the supply-side and on the demand-side which helps to determine availability, efficacy, and cost).

"you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care."

Sorry, but this is just absurd. What else can I say?

"but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?"

The free market model.

"if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism."

Redundant: "free market under the auspices of free market."

"disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine."

Only Krugman-style Keynesians would say that illness is more profitable than health (or war more profitable than peace, or that alien invasions and broken windows are good for the economy). They, like you, aren't taking into account the One Lesson in Economics: look at how it affects every group, not just one group; look at the long term effects, not just short term ones. You're just seeing that, in the short-run, health will be less profitable for medical practitioners (or some pharmaceuticals) that are currently working in the treatment of illness. But look at every group outside that small group and at the long run and you can see that health is more profitable than illness overall. The market that profits more from illness will have to adapt, in ways that only the market knows for sure.

Do you realize that the money you put into socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.) is money you deplete from prevention entrepreneurship?

(As an aside, I wonder, why do so many people assume that the socialized central planners have some kind of special knowledge or wisdom that entrepreneurs do not? And why is there the belief that unlike entrepreneurs, socialist central planners are not selfishly motivated but always act in the interest of the "common good?" Could this be part of the propagandized and indoctrinated fear that's implicit in living in a socialized environment? Why do serfs (and I'm sure that, at some level, people know that's what they are) love the socialist central planners more than they love themselves? Complex questions about self-esteem and captive minds.)

If fewer people get sick, the market will then demand more practitioners to move from treating illness into other areas like prevention, being a prevention doctor or whatever. You're actually making the argument for free market here, not against it. Socialized bureaucratically dictated medicine will not adapt to the changing needs as efficiently or rapidly as a free market can and would. If more people are getting sick, then we'll need more doctors to treat them. If fewer people are getting sick because preventive medicine takes off, then we'll have more of that type of service. If a socialized healthcare is mandated, then we will invariably have a glut of allopathic doctors, with little need for their services (and we then have the kinds of problems we see amongst doctors who are coerced -- by the threat of losing their license -- to take medicaid and then lie on their reports in order to recoup their costs, e.g., see the article linked here.)

Meanwhile, there has been and will remain huge profits to be made in prevention, as the vitamin, supplements, alternative medicine, naturopathy, exercise and many other industries attest to. What are you talking about, that there's no profit in preventing illness? (In a manner of speaking, that's actually my bread and butter!) If you have a way to prevent illness, you will have more than enough people buying from you, people who don't want to get sick. (And other services for the people who do.) Open a gym. Become a naturopath. Teach stress management, meditation, yoga, zumba, whatever! And there are always those who need treatment, who are sick, and the free market will then have an accurate measure of how to allocate the right resources and number of such practitioners. This is something that the central planners (under socialized services) simply cannot possibly do (except, of course, for the omniscient ones that socialists insist exist).

You wrote "cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis."

But they won't as long as you have centrally planned (socialized) medicine. The free market forces practitioners to respond to the market's demands. Socialized medicine does not. Entrepreneurs will (as they already have) exploit openings for profit in prevention (without the advantage of regulations which distort the markets) and take the business away from treatment doctors. If anything, doctors prevent preventative medicine from getting more widespread by using government regulations to limit what the preventive practitioners do. In fact, preventive medicine is so profitable that it has many in the medical profession lobbying to curtail it. They are losing much business to alternative/preventive practitioners. They lobby to, for example, prevent herb providers from stating the medical/preventive benefits of their herbs. They even prevent strawberry farmers to tout the health benefits of strawberries! It is the state that is slowing down preventive medicine, not the free market! In Puerto Rico, for example, once the Medical Association lost a bit to prohibit naturopathy, they effectively outlawed acupuncture by successfully getting a law passed that requires all acupuncturists to be medical doctors. Insanity.

If you think there is no profit in preventative care or exercise, think GNC and Richard Simmons, and Pilates, and bodywork, and my own practice of psychotherapy. Many of the successful corporations (I'm thinking of Google and Pixar and SalesForce and Oracle, etc.) see the profit and value in preventative care, which is why they have these "stay healthy" programs for their employees. There's more money in health than illness. No doubt.

Or how about the health food/nutrition business? Or organic farming, or whole foods! The free market could maybe call for fewer oncologists and for more Whole Foods or even better natural food stores. Of course, we don't know the specifics, but that's actually the point. Only the free market knows (and the omniscient socialist central planners) what needs to happen and how.

Imagination! We need to get people to use it more.

You wrote: "but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet."

You're actually making my point here. In a free market, pharmaceutical companies cannot monopolize what "drugs" people can or cannot take, sell or not sell, and cannot prevent natural alternatives from being promoted. Only with state intervention (by way of IP regulations, and so forth) can they do so.

Free market is not corporatism. Free market is not crony capitalism. (More disinformation that needs to be lifted.)

So you're not countering my free market position, you're countering the crony capitalist position. This is a straw man argument, even if in this case you might not have understood my position in the first place. You, like so many others, equate "capitalism" with cronyism or corporatism. Many cannot conceive of a free market that is free from regulation. So folks then argue against their own interests, either for or against "fascist" vs. "socialist" medicine. The free market is, in fact, outside these two positions.

You wrote: "IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis. the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering."

I won't go into medicare right now (It is a disaster, and so is the current non-free-market insurance industry. See the article linked in my comment above.)

You wrote "this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades."

I don't want to be a naysayer but, socialism is nothing new. It has been tried (and failed) many times before. The USSR had socialized medicine. So does Cuba (but then you may believe the Michael Moore fairytale about medicine in Cuba). It's probably better to go see in person how Cubans live and how they have no access to the places that Moore visited.

You wrote: "i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other."

Really, then why try to force me (or anyone) into your idea of "good" medicine? The free market is a communal effort. In fact, it is nothing else (and nothing else is as communal as the free market). Central planning, socialized, top-down decision-making, is not. Never has been. Never will be.

Voluntary interactions is "taking care of each other." Coercion is not. Socialism is coercion. It cannot "work" any other way. A free market is voluntary cooperation.

Economic calculation is necessary to avoid chaos, whatever the purpose of a service. This is economic law. Unless the purpose is to create chaos, you need real prices and efficiency that only the free market can provide.

I hope this helps to clarify (and not confuse) what I wrote on @eric3579's profile.

Yeah the whole "he's subtly insulting our appearance... self-esteem down to 60%!"

If a woman's self-esteem were that easily shakable, she's probably not worth it in the first place.

Well, you may all have self-esteem problems, but I KNOW my balls are beautiful.

*quality *doublepromote