I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.

You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.

^gwiz665 Troublesome topic to get into on a forum. But I will make a meager attempt to express myself on this matter.

Firstly, I greatly respect you as a person, and value your opinion. Please excuse any phrasing that seems belittling or disrespectful of your own personal experiences with Christianity; my purpose isn't to discredit your personal experience, but relay mine.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a practicing Christian, I am an agnostic atheist. My pursuit of truth and knowledge lead me away from my faith some time ago. However, it is the very pursuits Christianity grew up in me that lead to this second awakening in myself. Christianity saved me, twice. Let me explain.

Low self esteem has been the story of my whole life. I was bullied a lot as a child, and my week personality was unable to cope. I always was pretty good in school in terms of grades. But the scars of my low self esteem means I never tried to live up to my full potential. I sold myself short in everything, I gave up, gave in, quit trying. Always managing slightly above average marks, several shallow friendships, and anything else that wasn't to risky.

That all changed in high school. I met one of the most influential friends I had in my life. He radiated self confidence. He also happened to be a Christian. I formerly mocked Christians via the evangelists I saw on TV, it was my only real experience with Christians till that point. I eventually "converted" to Christianity and my life was forever changed. I felt good about myself. Felt I could actually be something, do something, affect something. I was encouraged not only in personality, but in mind. I read countless books on theology, philosophy, and science. I grew in ways that I couldn't fully appreciate until my second great awakening. I was forever a different person. Gone where the rational bounds I placed on myself. I was no longer constrained by the ordinary. It was light in my darkness. A cure to the miasma of my existence. It instilled in my the responcibility to myself for goodness, purity, kindness, and truth.

The pursuit of truth eventually lead me to realize that if there is a God, it can't be the God of the bible (I won't go into that here), and so ended that phase of my life. But I am forever indebted to Christianity. And while someone might rightly point out it was me saving me, it still wouldn't of happened (I believe) without those people in the place they were doing the things they were with the believe that they were, I wouldn't be where I am now (most likely would of killed myself). All things have their share of evils and goods. For my part, even though I am no longer a Christian, I can't ever call for its eradication, or even that it is a moral bad.

To me, the great evil that works in us is a 2 billion year old tail; that this world is a world of violence. 2 billion years of animals eating other animals can't be laid at the feet of Christianity, or Islam, or any other scapegoat. We are humans, a tragic creature able to understand its own tragic nature. We seek to pass the blame to something we created, but it is what 2 billion years of life has created working in us, through us. We are the result of that, not the result of ourselves...yet. Perhaps in time we will come to terms with ourselves, and deal with ourselves. To this day, we only at best manage ourselves. I can't stop feeling anger at someone for cutting me off in traffic, I can only manage it the best I can. And I guess that is my closing thought. Right now, the best person is just a manager of their human condition, our fate was determined long ago through the course of billions of years of ooze... perhaps; or maybe God did it all, I don't know.

(edit: grammar and spelling, ugh)

"Of all the things we could be exporting to help people
around the world, really negative body image and low
self-esteem are not what we hope is going out with public
health messaging." ALEXANDRA BREWIS, executive director
of Arizona State University's School of Human Evolution
and Social Change. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/spreading-fat-stigma-around-the-globe/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha3


Not the best article, scientifically. And I think they give too much credence to their fights against obesity and ignore.... movies and tv and advertising that is being exported.

>> ^SDGundamX:


@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/crotchflame" title="member since June 26th, 2007" class="profilelink">crotchflame I think the ads are both the cause and effect at the same time. They're the effect of a cultural norm that says its okay to treat women as (usually sexual) objects but they also cause that norm to be reinforced--so much so that some women even embrace that norm to their own detriment.


Our own detriment how, though? What social ill is growing as a consequence? Violence against women? Divorce? Low self-esteem? I would take any such argument seriously but most the commentary here seems to be at the introduction and not the conclusion.

There are counterpoints as well. Such as advertisers using artistic license in presenting an ideal of female beauty that we can't just assume people are taking seriously. There are women that match better to the ideal than others and we can't pretend that isn't the case any more than we should shut down the NBA because we can't all dunk a basketball. It should also be remembered that it's the ad's job to catch people's attention and it does that by bending cultural norms. We all spend much more time interacting with real people than with photo-shopped magazine prints.

I'm not defending anything here. I just feel like the subject is a great deal more complex than it's being made out to be. Not that that justifies the ugly, whiny feminist line of thought in the comments though.

>> ^robbersdog49:

I went to a school where bullying was just a fact of life. The normal advice you got was to stand up to bullies. It doesn't work. This video is a real one off. If this had happened at my school the big kid who stepped up at 0:27 would have kicked the shit out of the fat kid.


Exactly so. Forget everything you know (or think you know) about why kids bully. We used to think that it was insecure kids seeking to tear down kids that are even MORE insecure, and that the bullying was a consequence of problems at home, etc.

The problem was that all the federal dollars that went towards studying the problem looked at juvenile delinquents, who, as you might imagine, have messed up home lives and self-esteem issues. Even though all the populations studied were far from random, the view that bullies have antisocial tendencies predominated.

Then Columbine happened. Despite what you might think of Kleibold and Harris, they were in fact bullied, and not by kids from broken homes. The people who tormented them were from upper middle class homes with two parents and no problems. Suddenly the federal dollars manifested to study ALL children, and they discovered something astonishing (tho not to someone who'd ever been bullied):

Bullies bully because it works. And we teach them this at a very early age. How? Imagine one of those "paygrounds," with the ball pit and the curvy slides. A team studies literally thousands of interactions between children and their peers via closed circuit cameras. They watched as children who did not know one another navigated the various social networks that would form and dissolve in front of their eyes. From time to time, a kid would get socially aggressive, and the other child would seek succor from an adult. Now the adult probably has the belief that "they have to work it out for themselves," and so must make a choice between intervening and not. Otherwise, children learn to 'tattle', to recruit a heavy (in the form of an adult) to get his or her way, right.

So, out of, say, ten of these instances, how many times has the aggrieved child made an earnest effort to negotiate on a peer level, and actually needs an adult for intervention? 1 time? Half the time? Try 9 times out of ten. And almost always, the adult rebuffs the child. So this teaches the socially aggressive child that he or she can do whatever he or she pleases, and no one will come to the aid of their victim. Welcome to the Serengeti, children. It's as if we never left.

So what's to be done? As a teacher, I've thought about it a lot. First, I ALWAYS intervene. This means that 10% of the time, I fall for sheer crap-weasel-ness, but that only works once. If another intervention is needed, I keep an eye on the petitioner, and if he or she's becoming an instigator, it's time for a little time out, usually with no explanation (until after class is over). The next is to muck with the social dynamic. I control the environment in the room, not the students. They can interact with each other as much as they want, but I control all the mundane things that add up to so much in the long run.

What this kid was demonstrating in this video was the Ender Wiggins's School of Social Dynamism, which is that if you show yourself capable of great rage that can be tightly controlled, people will give you a wide berth. Is it right? I don't know how long the bullying had occurred, nor what measures had been instituted to resolve the problem. If it's the average American school, 1) too long, and 2) not enough.

Oh, and don't forget the role of the other crap-weasels in this video--the instigators with the cameraphone. Like the now infamous Epic Old Man video, the 'videographer' talked a lot of smack, and failed to help in any way. They too need to be punished for aiding to an atmosphere where such an outcome was likely. Luckily, someone was stupid enough to make a recording of exactly what they were saying.

I agree with QM

>> ^quantumushroom:

>> kceaton1:

>>> Show me a nation--any nation throughout history--that's taxed itself into prosperity, especially by the tactics of a centralized government courting a planned economy, pitting one class against another and cannibalizing the productive members of society to get votes from the other kind. Show me a Euro-Union that isn't going bankrupt country by country.
>>> I notice that no one at the sift ever disses, say, MS-DNC over CNN, and the reason for this is both are parroting each other and the taxocrat party line. Don't let something as little as perceived rudeness on M. Kelly's part lead you to believe otherwise.
>>> Do you really want to argue about which side is spoiled and drowning in media groupthink? Assuming "The Right" has Fox (which I don't watch anyway) here's a partial list of the left-leaning propaganda machine, which did the world a favor by 'coming out' in 2008 and openly joining Obama's election (and now reelection) campaign.
THE (partial) LIST
Media Matters (feeds most of these "credible" media their talking points)
The old Big 3 networks: ABC, MS-DNC, CBS
CNN
Comedy central (talk about nightly propaganda!)
Air America radio (bankrupt)
NPR - (MY tax dollars pushing your agenda---at least Glenn Beck does his thing on his OWN dime)
Most newspapers besides the WSJ
Magazine fluff like TIME and Newsweak
HuffPo
Hollywood's "product"
Most of the crap on tv
Most "rebellious" musical acts and assorted "artists"
Of course, I could be imagining things. It's not like a singer slipped in a message to OBAMA during the Superbowl half-time show.
--------------------------------
The left values equality more than truth, and views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This is why leftist policies fail to create jobs, wealth, security, confidence and yes, SUCCESS.
The truth (aka "what works") is more important than our self-esteem and feelings.

>> ^quantumushroom:




The left values equality more than truth, and views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This is why leftist policies fail to create jobs, wealth, security, confidence and yes, SUCCESS.
The truth (aka "what works") is more important than our self-esteem and feelings.


What's interesting is that obviously QM is attacking "liberalism". "Liberals" or independent thinkers are actually interested in facts, the how, the why, the what. It's always suspicious to me when someone randomly blurts out "the truth". It's a tell-tale sign of fundamentalist Christian soda-pop culture. So, what the hell is "THE TRUTH", QM?

>> kceaton1:

Seriously, QM, I hate to make a personal hit, but in this case (as your taking a shot at a lot of us) maybe you should get checked out for a mental illness or brain tumor.

>>> Are you joking? The left specializes in ad hominem attacks! You're HOME!
And no, I didn't say anything against anyone at this sift, but I do see now that the association of the word 'dunces' was too far away from 'media outlet' and so could be misinterpreted.

>>> To reiterate, the aforementioned "dunces" in question are the libmedia networks.


I'm actually very serious. If you don't have a medical issue and you're not trolling (I usually think you're trolling) you might want to consider, for one month, using only pure logic and facts that can be attained only directly or through scientific study (look at who does the study--if the world uses them as a source you're OK to use them--if it comes from a Christian College, I would go ahead and not use that) see if your viewpoint changes at all.

>>> I knew I was dealing with no one but supremely logical, liberal Mr. Spocks when someone mentioned hating the woman based on the spelling of her name (fortunately still legal according to Big Brother Hate Crime Law Series J11013).

>>> The tragedy is that YOU might be serious. A troll, much like the libmedia, hits and runs long before the ambulance of facts and logic arrives. I'm more than ready to defend my POVs, but since I am not paid by VS I do so at my leisure.

>>> Do you really think insulting the world's 2 billion Christians (I am not one, but there's worse associations out there than Jesus) adds gravitas to your arguments?

If you REALLY want to make sure you're not getting brainwashed throw yourself into the opposite stream of traffic mentally for about the same time; again using what you consider logically the best choice. If you change you're mind AT ALL (as in, "I have doubts on this subject that was a core belief") you should seriously consider that you're looking out at the world, with a window that's orange and has a screen in front of it.

>>> Not only am I huge fan of facts and logic, I'm really big on RESULTS. Does this current rash of leftist "leadership" (2006 - 2010 Congress, 2008 to present White House) have any positive results to share? If so, they were not communicated properly before November of last year.

>>> Show me a nation--any nation throughout history--that's taxed itself into prosperity, especially by the tactics of a centralized government courting a planned economy, pitting one class against another and cannibalizing the productive members of society to get votes from the other kind. Show me a Euro-Union that isn't going bankrupt country by country.

>>> I notice that no one at the sift ever disses, say, MS-DNC over CNN, and the reason for this is both are parroting each other and the taxocrat party line. Don't let something as little as perceived rudeness on M. Kelly's part lead you to believe otherwise.

>>> Do you really want to argue about which side is spoiled and drowning in media groupthink? Assuming "The Right" has Fox (which I don't watch anyway) here's a partial list of the left-leaning propaganda machine, which did the world a favor by 'coming out' in 2008 and openly joining Obama's election (and now reelection) campaign.

THE (partial) LIST

* Media Matters (feeds most of these "credible" media their talking points)
* The old Big 3 networks: ABC, MS-DNC, CBS
* CNN
* Comedy central (talk about nightly propaganda!)
* Air America radio (bankrupt)
* NPR - (MY tax dollars pushing your agenda---at least Glenn Beck does his thing on his OWN dime)
* Most newspapers besides the WSJ
* Magazine fluff like TIME and Newsweak
* HuffPo
* Hollywood's "product"
* Most of the crap on tv
* Most "rebellious" musical acts and assorted "artists"

Of course, I could be imagining things. It's not like a singer slipped in a message to OBAMA during the Superbowl half-time show.

--------------------------------

The left values equality more than truth, and views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This is why leftist policies fail to create jobs, wealth, security, confidence and yes, SUCCESS.

The truth (aka "what works") is more important than our self-esteem and feelings.

Wow. As our favourite troll points out,

It's spelled "favorite". When are you British/Others going to learn proper English?

Somehow you as a nation gave up on education one generation ago, and today you're paying the price for it.

We sure are. Carter, Clinton and a Teleprompter all got elected, didn't they? Highly unlikely events in a country that remembers its history, teaches about limited government and has a media composed of real journalists monitoring and questioning power.

Unionized government workers who are mostly left-wing run U.S. government indoctrination camps schools. Lots of self-esteem training and politically-correct preaching. Educating? Not so much.



Whether or not His Earness is an actual Muslim is irrelevant. He's an appeaser for the worst elements of that bizarre, blood-soaked "religion". Islam is just one more thing Ears doesn't understand. He apologized to Muslims for the USA's existence and extended his hand in friendship to the barbarians and received predictable responses. He has no idea how to handle Egypt or the economy.

I have a 19month old daughter and I read that article last week along with my wife. We are both very, very concerned about the sexualisation of women in the media (Killing us softly gives great pause). We'll be doing our damndest to make a tomboy out of our daughter (not that difficult I don't think, she has 3 older brothers )

It's interesting that the article mentions Katy Perry and California Girls; There's a family we're friends with who's daughter just started school (so 5yrs old) and last time we were over at their house she was singing and dancing on the table to California Girls. That song and video clip (and Katy Fricken Perry) are exactly the sort of shit that girls should NOT be watching. It purely paints women as things to be looked at and to fuss over their looks and shoot whipped cream out of their breasts... wait, what?

That girl has been raised in EXACTLY the way that is enforcing the consumerist, image focused bullshit that we hate as parents.

When it comes to TV shows I'd like her to watch things like Kim Possible (although still with bloody cheerleading etc.) because she's a ridiculously capable secret agent, rather than tripe like Hanna Montanna or iCarli.

At the moment about the only thing she watches (in small doses) is Austalia's own Wiggles, which she loves and 'sings' and dances to. Actually, this morning when I dressed her I purposely picked out an outfit that had NO pink in it We originally were going to have a 'no pink' rule completely, but then it'd be very hard to actually buy ANY clothes for her.

So, yeah. My opinion is that for all of women's lib it seems to have been swinging way into the realms of getting girls to think about dating and sex and being sexy earlier and earlier and earlier... and it's quite sick.


It's going to be a challenge indeed to raise a girl with a healthy self esteem, no hang ups on her looks, a belief in her abilities AND still not have her be a prude or have any hang up about sex etc. when she's older.

*sigh*... kids, aren't they great?

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.

>> ^Skeeve:

In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <


That would be addressed in the general millieu of primary and secondary education. Sex ed is way more than just putting a condom on a banana. Sometimes a sex ed class is its own separate thing and other times it's just a subsidiary part of a home ec class or something.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not that they don't know what condoms are. There are millions of people in the world who know what condoms are and still don't use them (or use them properly); the key is in teaching why to use them.

The girl does say that there should be classes that teach the girls about protection and about not getting pregnant so I imagine it is a bit of both.

@Reefie As for the comment about the 1 child per family as per China, I don't even know where to start. First there's the massive problems associated with the policy in China; ie. the 4-2-1 problem (one child not able to help support 2 parents and 4 grandparents), the increase in infanticide, the huge gender disparity, etc. Then there's the fact that its results have been exaggerated; better economic status and better healthcare are more effective at controlling birthrates than the one-child policy, plus China's most dramatic decreases in birth-rate occurred before the policy under the voluntary "late, long, few" policy. And finally there is the fact that most "Western" countries are facing a population decline already - with so few people being born to the Baby Boomers that there will not be enough people to support their pensions. I'm not sure what the suggestion had to do with this video, but it doesn't really have a place in any realistic discussion about population.


>> ^bareboards2:

I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.

>> ^Skeeve:

In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <

>> ^bareboards2:
I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.
>> ^Skeeve:
In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <


Sounds very much like why my youngest sister got herself pregnant. That plus the benefits situation in the UK can help someone generate an income for the next 16 years, longer if the children stay at home while attending uni or other forms of further education. You're right that teaching these teenagers about condoms might not fix the problem, but teaching them what it's like to raise a child might be a good way to put them off - let's have all teenagers (boys and girls) work in old folks homes for a few months so they get first-hand experience of nappy-changing, bathing, feeding, and overall the responsibility of having to look after another person.

I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.

There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.

Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.



>> ^Skeeve:

In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <

Translator <---spelling Manslater <---FAIL
Manslater is what some whore thinks..."I'm going to do some mans later".

Also, thankfully, not all women are annoying passive aggressive assholes. Though, of course I get the joke. People get passive aggressive when they have no power in the situation. People who have like...y'know...self-esteem tend not to do this kind of childish bullshit.

Not bashing the vid, though. I lol'd @ the massage part and the "can I go see a movie with my bros translation".