equality, but not real equality...


though this falls into the same moronic nature of the whole some people can say the N word, some can't... real equality means no double standard, no special exceptions, etc...

entitlement from one extreme to the other is still inequality...

that being said, its a show with big mouthed women, blabbing about stuff no one but other big mouthed women care about... it's comedy, not my brand, but its comedy...

where the perfect meeting point lays is a little beyond the ability of anonymous-internet trolls to determine tbqh...

comedy and rational though suffer because of the above

@SDGundamX - I agree with Pat, and this is why: Right now religious people are only accustomed to being insulted insofar as people prevent them from forcing their beliefs on others. They have enjoyed a double standard that I think should be removed from society, and I'm glad to say it's starting to happen. That is, they can walk up to anybody and tell them they're going to hell, but I'm not supposed to walk around talking about how religion is nothing but a fairy tale. They get their feelings hurt. They think that freedom of religion means they can talk about religion and push it on other people, and not have to hear anybody telling them they are immature and irrational.

It's tit for tat time. They tell me I'm going to hell, I tell them they're going to cease to exist. They tell me to find Jesus, I'll tell them there's no evidence a man named Jesus even existed. They tell me that morality is derived from the bible, I ask them when was the last time they stoned an adulteress.

"Religion is a crock of dangerous, evil, dehumanizing, superstitious garbage." It's time we started treating it that way. And that means insulting the hell out of people who try to spread it. Because that is how we knock it off the bullshit pedestal it has been put on.

I don't hate burdturgler. He lied to dag--he can't even read private profile messages without immense trouble and did no fact checking--and told him I was sending him private profile messages when I never did and that got me hobbled. I should dislike him for that and I do a bit. I don't like lying. It's not conducive to anything. I should dislike him for his blatant double standard as it applies to the word nigger. nigger.videosift.com, etc, he says nigger more than anyone I've ever seen on this site. Insulting me on my profile for insulting another person on their profile when he called a Siftquisition against me for that very thing? It's a daisy chain of hypocrisy. I don't rejoice in the fact that he left again because it leaves no recourse or closure. I'm certain he'll come back just to leave again. Volatile people are volatile.

And being female has no bearing on what language or words a person chooses. bareboards2 chose to put herself out there and invite attention. Her vagina has nothing to do with how I dislike her personality. She's manipulative, attention-starved and annoying in her dogged persistence and demands for answers, @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@.

blankfist accused bareboards2 of banning a bunch of people? What? I don't know why that's what you take away from this and if you'd like to, perhaps clarify that statement or at least cite what you're referring to?

>> ^Issykitty:

I wouldn't call blankfist's telling MrFisk to go suck a dick, and calling him a sanctimonious asshole, and calling Netrunner an idiot a "dialogue," especially when blankfist has accused bareboards of having a bunch of people banned when that wasn't the case. Because she is female and doesn't resort to that kind of language, is that why you target her as a punching bag? I really would like to know. Also, Seems just a tad out of line, destructive and pointless. This is me clarifying my fake discard invocation. Honestly, I would if it were my blog. This is a fucking load of shit. I think this is more about how much we all know you hate burdturgler. Can't you just rejoice in the fact that he left again?

Thanks for the quality and the link! I absolutely agree about the subtle racism towards foreigners coming from Islamic countries (and "3rd world" countries in general). It comes up also when some liberals see everything bad happening in ex-colonies as solely the fault of colonisation; as if the only people who can fundamentally influence society are the Westerners.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I completely agree. Islam sets pits various liberal principals against one another - respect and tolerance for other cultures, and sympathy for the massive loss of life Muslims have suffered at the hands of the west on the one hand - disgust at the brutality and misogyny of segments of Islam on the other.
Complicating matters is that most westerners are fairly ignorant of Islam, and most representations of Muslims in the media (both news and entertainment) are usually fairly racist.
I think the double standard between criticizing Christianity and Islam is because we feel more comfortable criticizing the well known religion of our own culture than we do a foreign and exotic religion of another culture.
I also think there is some subtle liberal racism mixed in as well, seeing Muslims as primatives not subject to the same moral and ethical codes that we sophisticated westerners are.
There is an interesting debate that touches on some of these issues here: http://videosift.com/video/Religion-Politics-and-the-End-of-the-World

quality writing.

I completely agree. Islam sets pits various liberal principals against one another - respect and tolerance for other cultures, and sympathy for the massive loss of life Muslims have suffered at the hands of the west on the one hand - disgust at the brutality and misogyny of segments of Islam on the other.

Complicating matters is that most westerners are fairly ignorant of Islam, and most representations of Muslims in the media (both news and entertainment) are usually fairly racist.

I think the double standard between criticizing Christianity and Islam is because we feel more comfortable criticizing the well known religion of our own culture than we do a foreign and exotic religion of another culture.

I also think there is some subtle liberal racism mixed in as well, seeing Muslims as primatives not subject to the same moral and ethical codes that we sophisticated westerners are.

There is an interesting debate that touches on some of these issues here: http://videosift.com/video/Religion-Politics-and-the-End-of-the-World

*quality writing.

Just to make it clear, I am not saying we shouldn't criticise Christianity, only pointing out the double standard I sometimes face. As a secular humanist and antitheist, I find it discouraging that others who share my ethical stances would make an exception for Islam.

@enoch
All religions have multiple facets, and the large majority of people, no matter their faith or lack thereof, will usually lean towards an empathetic lifestyle. This does not change the problems with religions' core ideologies. You are right to mention the historical context and relativity; what I deplore is that what was more or less the norm in the Iron Age has been enshrined in holy writ, the good with the bad. Contrary to the writings of the philosophers, which one can debate without fear, sacred texts must not be questioned.

others beat me to it, but the others are:

John Ensign: http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/Public%20Report_Preliminary%20Inquiry%20into%20the%20matter%20of%20Sen%20Ensign.pdf Stayed in office for two years despite bribery charges.

and of course Bush and Cheney's lies and fraud to get us into Iraq.

Those are just the ones you can find from a quick google search. I know there were charges brought against a Republican for pedophilia charges but he still didn't step down. Ahh there it is, found it. Kevin Garn: http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/03/kevin_garn_utah_house_majority.php

It's not that I don't think Weiner should have resigned, but the Republican hypocrisy and double standards are the bigger offense here. Weiner and Clinton may have lied their asses off, but at least no one died, nor were children molested

I see the double standard still exists. Dems do something stupid/unethical, but don't actually break any laws and they get thrown to the wolves. Reps do something far far more despicable and against the law, but rarely resign.

This is so scandalous! Because they are precious girls! What? Boys behave similarly? Pff who cares...

Yay double standard. That being said, where are social services? Why are these idiots still with their parents?

And why is the Maury Show allowed to show such crap which is clearly stirred up artificially?

And why don't I know the answers? I'm studying this crap!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw" title="member since May 3rd, 2010" class="profilelink">Lawdeedaw & @campionidelmondo
Again, we ain't talkin' bout coulda happened.
We're talking about what did happen.
Speculate all you want guys. The two things we know to be true are:
1.She's batshit crazy
2.She was willing to murder her own kids because of bible myths.
You can't separate those two things when you're talking about this event.
Just because not every crazed event involves religion..
..doesn't mean you can act like religion had nothing to do with this event in particular, since it clearly did.


Speculate? Because, I must stress, shit has happened and has been blamed for all kinds of shit (The kid was taking acid, the video games were violent, he listened to rock/rap music before the killings, he was molested/beaten, etc.) That is not speculation, this is reality.

And yes, no one can separate that she is batshit crazy (As if we would think any other way) or the fact that she applied her own religious dogma. And for the record, I am atheist and hate the actual bible-bible. It sanctioned far too much hatred and wickedness.

AND YET! Who created the bible? Man. Why? As a form of control, I believe. A second form of government to control that controls the weak (Just like a regular government does.) And, in the name of government, all our countries war and kill, war and kill. Are you calling all troops, governments, and their populaces (Those who just stand by and allow such things to happen) crazy on a level equal to the bible? I hope so.

Otherwise that's a fucked up, double standard. Many governments would have no problems killing babies in the dark if it meant saving a bit of face (Even our country; See, slavery and half black babies.)

If you agree that nations and their agenda's are batshit crazy, then the problem is not religion; the problem is humanity.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Is it because Osama Bin Laden was rich and the murdered Chilean women and children were poor? Is your double standard about Freidmanite genocide a class issue, or is it just more of your typical everyday partisanship?
>> ^blankfist:
@dystopianfuturetoday, really? That's your analogous response? To compare an economist's role in fixing Chile's hyperinflation to a state sanctioned assassination that set a dangerous precedent of skirting the basic right to due process?
Bloodthirsty progressive needs to rethink his arguments.



lol

This is probably the worst attempt at building an argument you've made on the Sift since I've known you.

Is it because Osama Bin Laden was rich and the murdered Chilean women and children were poor? Is your double standard about Freidmanite genocide a class issue, or is it just more of your typical everyday partisanship?

>> ^blankfist:

@dystopianfuturetoday, really? That's your analogous response? To compare an economist's role in fixing Chile's hyperinflation to a state sanctioned assassination that set a dangerous precedent of skirting the basic right to due process?
Bloodthirsty progressive needs to rethink his arguments.

Didn't your idol, Milton Friedman, cheer the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Chileans, so that he could force his brutal economic system on an unwilling Chilean public? I should think the death of an international criminal hardly compares to Friedmanite genocide.

Why the double standard?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
These are just unvarnished genius.

I'm surprised. Most bloodthirsty progressives who cheered the assassination of Osama want to forget about the trampling of a human's rights and move on.

double standards are a bitch man. smear them from your thought.
In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Sounds ok to me. Sounds like he's sticking up for himself, and being assertive. If he'd said he's going to punch a girl in the cunt (using those words), I'd find it more difficult.

Who makes fun of a five year old for learning how to ride a bike?

>> ^Porksandwich:

Racism and projects that attempt to offset the affects of discrimination/racism.....there's a lot of ways to look at it. I can only speak to my viewpoint on it, and that's as a white male who is currently unemployed.
In my local area the majority of the population is made up of white and blacks, a few Indians, very few Mexicans that only seem to be around in the summer months, and a smattering of other races...but the vast majority are whites and blacks. According to the census it's about 50% white and 40% black of total population. And for every 100 females there's about 90-94 men....so a few more women than men.
And one would think that if you walked into a government facility such as the unemployment compensation department housed in the same place they handle food stamps and other welfare programs that you would see the population reflected in their employees. However I noticed that at least 70% of the people I saw working there were female, and the largest represented race there were blacks making up probably 6-7 out of every 10 people I saw who seemed to work there.
Now this is in a time when there are A LOT of people looking for jobs and the government programs are being flooded by the sheer amount of people using the services. I would have taken a job there, even though it looked like a pretty hectic place to work. They hired 3-4 times last year and I never saw any noticeable change in the sex and race of the people employed there.
And they were still overburdened, making mistakes......not calling back...and generally just bungling everything I had to turn into them for unemployment and the extensions. So it's not like they were getting high quality personnel by hiring the people they did. I can only conclude they did this because of a quota in the overall government or because the people in charge of hiring showed preference. How do you prove something like that? If the job were something more like what I'd like to do, I might have cared enough to ask them.
But it made me question at what point does giving non-whites a leg up start to become discrimination against whites?
It also made me wonder why we can't have any "whites only" programs, when there are plenty of programs for blacks only? Some of them even receive government funding.
If anyone needs more help to get a job or more help to get into college, there should be organizations to help with that....non-discriminatory in nature. If you are close, but not quite there..whether it be financially or education based you should be able to receive help. Then they could go back to admitting/hiring the best person they can get for the money, and then if the non-discriminating organization sees that there's bias ...they have some authority to speak from. Where as a black-only program doesn't know if bias is taking place because they are biased themselves.
I still remember all the black only clubs they had at college. I think there were even some Indian only clubs....which they probably wouldn't have let in my US born Indian friend because Indians born in India didn't like US born Indians....the TAs who were mostly India in the tech fields of study would barely talk to him.
Basically, if you're white........it's OK if you don't get a group of your own. You'd automatically be a racist if you even asked to have a white only club, because you'd know it'd be people bitching about the double standard......which would basically be bitching about other races.


I think your unemployment office offers a pretty good slice of the overall picture, at least where female employees are concerned. My theory (if you could call it that) is that women take those jobs because they're used to being underpaid for shit work. They're also used to being treated like shit by people they serve, and to society having a negative view of them in general. And I'm not talking about the experience of a lot of todays pampered little princesses. I'm talking about a deeply embedded genetic instinct. Perhaps the situation of the black employees could be similar.

One thing's for sure, the women in the office you go to aren't there because of some female affirmative action plan, and yet they're still out of balance with the local population.