>> ^bareboards2:

Good lord, as women we can't get away from what guys want. It should ONLY be what the women want to do.

I live in a town where "dressing up" everyday is frowned upon.


Here in-lies the flaw in attempting to promote the concept of personal choice by actively supporting the opposite of the current status quo in a given situation, whatever that may be.

If achieving an alternative to a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.

If promoting the concept of personal choice in a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.

If maintaining the current status quo in a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.

One can not have multiple primary goals, and to combine them creates an argument that is not only contradictory, but is less than the sum of it's parts.

It is the same one. Funny thing, siftbot wouldn't let me fix it--because it's a dupe! Hahaha.
http://videosift.com/video/Funny-cats-in-water-compilation
In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
dead :

Might this be the same?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctJJrBw7e-c&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Pfft, you're sexy and you know it!
In reply to this comment by ant:
>> ^TheSluiceGate:

Are you fucking kidding me. How about a poll for "Ugliest Gold Star Videosifter"?


That would be me. :

Yes, Yes, you are correct
I don't no why I wrote all that - I just had a moment of rebelling against political correctness.

The truth is, other than on TV, I've never seen anyone dress up as the sexy whatever costume - at least not to extreme (outside of maybe at night clubs aka. the bars). Most people I know are fun and reserved and not at all pretentious and actually come up with some very original costumes..

The best costumes are the scary ones where you can't even tell who is wearing the costume.
"Sexy" as a costume - IS NOT A COSTUME. I don't even know why women would bother with them. I assume it's because they are too cool and are too insecure to let anyone see them except at their best - even when "Best" is artificial and shallow.

(Disclaimer: I don't even know if this makes any sense, Sorry, I'm tired and my kids are all in room blasting Youtube videos - on two different computers, across the room - making it hard for me to think or form any coherent sentences.)

My real opinion is that from all the videos I've seen this year - people are over-thinking their costumes and Halloween. The truth is, the costume doesn't matter - It's how much fun you have that counts.

Also: A knife in a box of cereal does not make it a serial killer costume

>> ^bareboards2:

@Sagemind -- I think you are missing the point.
Or maybe -- rather -- Your second line is exactly the point. "Did you ever stop to think that maybe guys like the whole sexy look?" Good lord, as women we can't get away from what guys want. It should ONLY be what the women want to do.
It is about giving a different message to young women. Right now, they get inundated with one message only. This is what guys want. In magazines. In the movies. On television. (And yes, men are starting to be pressured in a similar way, but I don't see that as progress. I see that as the disease is spreading.)
I live in a town where "dressing up" everyday is frowned upon. Lots of "dressing down" here. When Halloween hits, the Sexy Everything shows up in spades. Men and women both. Then the next day, they go back to six layers and flannel. It's a great release, it's great fun.
You aren't the target audience, dear Sage. The target audience is young women who have never thought about being Louis CK. The target audience is young women who perhaps have never considered having their own fun with a costume, having their own self expression, rather than yet one more iteration of "this is what guys want."
What do THE YOUNG WOMEN want?
They choose sexy? Fine. They choose to be a paunchy balding ginger? What a hoot!

@Sagemind -- I think you are missing the point.

Or maybe -- rather -- Your second line is exactly the point. "Did you ever stop to think that maybe guys like the whole sexy look?" Good lord, as women we can't get away from what guys want. It should ONLY be what the women want to do.

It is about giving a different message to young women. Right now, they get inundated with one message only. This is what guys want. In magazines. In the movies. On television. (And yes, men are starting to be pressured in a similar way, but I don't see that as progress. I see that as the disease is spreading.)

I live in a town where "dressing up" everyday is frowned upon. Lots of "dressing down" here. When Halloween hits, the Sexy Everything shows up in spades. Men and women both. Then the next day, they go back to six layers and flannel. It's a great release, it's great fun.

You aren't the target audience, dear Sage. The target audience is young women who have never thought about being Louis CK. The target audience is young women who perhaps have never considered having their own fun with a costume, having their own self expression, rather than yet one more iteration of "this is what guys want."

What do THE YOUNG WOMEN want?

They choose sexy? Fine. They choose to be a paunchy balding ginger? What a hoot!

In reply to this comment by ant:
Why get rid of me? :

Geez ... took ya long enough to FIND it! I was just feeling ornery and thought I'd rattle your cage =oP

>> ^mintbbb:
dead <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/frown.gif">


Thank you Mint! Fixed.

I'm sorry, man...I just don't get what you're trying to say. It looks like you're trying to shoe-horn an agenda — albeit an honorable one — on a video about poor sportsmanship.

Maybe we should be made more aware of the reality of kids' concussions. I would have to do more research though because that NPR article has NO information as to where the "estimated" number comes from. I hate to be that guy, but honestly, that guy is why we know that the earth is a sphere and it travels around the sun...you can't just believe everything you read.

Assuming that it's close to correct...or even if the actual number is 25% of all pre-college football players have experienced concussions, then I would agree that something should be done to fix it. But, like I said, this isn't a video about kids getting concussions, nor is it a video about bounty-gate. The fact of the matter is that those things are bad — hence why people have been fired/suspended. Despite the physical nature of the sport, the intent to maliciously hurt somebody is frowned-upon by a majority of the NFL. There is a big difference between seeing a good solid hit between the numbers, wrapping up the player, and taking him to the ground, and taking out his knee cap. I don't see what's hard to understand about that.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@rottenseed
You're inventing a narrative of what I've said that isn't consistent with reality.
I never said I didn't like football.
I never said I no one should play it.
I never said everyone had to adopt my point of view.
I never said kids are playing football against their will.
I did say that the certainty of concussions is reason enough not to play.
I did cite statistics about concussions that happen to adolescents PRE-college
"of the nearly 5 million adolescents playing football below the college level, it's estimated that half have sustained concussions, a third of them on multiple occasions"
From: http://www.npr.org/2012/05/09/152250525/mind-games-football-and-h
ead-injuries
Stop being a pussy and let that virulent feeling of bloodlust wash over you when those players go down. As you said, they're paid as much as they are because they know the risks involved. If that's the case, this should be celebrated as part of the game, no?
I'm arguing for safety, but I'm a pussy. And you're arguing for the game, but dont want players to get hurt. I'm sure the Saints bounty scandal was limited to that team and nothing like that happens anywhere else. Oh wait... http://www.myfoxny.com/story/19667323/calif-kids-footbal
l-team-hit-with-bounty-scandal
Cheer for the injuries that are part of this culture or call for better safety, I say.

Here's what wiki has to say about Ford and his high wages -- that he called profit sharing for qualified workers. Started in 1914. By the Great Depression, no more profits, I guess, and therefore no more high wages:

Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.[20]

Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[21] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression."[22] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[23][24] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[25] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[26] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)

Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[27] Ford's policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the policy as profit-sharing rather than wages.[28] It may have been Couzens who convinced Ford to adopt the $5 day.[29]

The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Social Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and what might today be called "deadbeat dads". The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this "profit-sharing."

Ford's incursion into his employees' private lives was highly controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects. By the time he wrote his 1922 memoir, he spoke of the Social Department and of the private conditions for profit-sharing in the past tense, and admitted that "paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, oftentimes special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency's sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment."[30]

<3
In reply to this comment by ant:
PlayhousePals, don't you have a life? Oh wait, none of us do. :

That's ok, TYT took the video down already and dunno if there'd be another copy anyway. Besides, I dunno how to remove the backup, lol

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
I screwed up your Romney airplane window video. : The original embed was marked private, so I replaced with Burdturglers's video, not realizing the original was from TYT. I don't want to screw it up worse, as I often do when "fixing" something here, so could you please delete the backup for me. I'm not a heavy toad on the inner machinations of VS. Sorry. Feel free to berate me in the comments.

The next comment made on that comment stream hit many of my points.

I'm trying to clean up my act here.... it needed to be deleted.

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
redacted.

I need to learn the discipline of not responding.

Sorry to anyone who read my mental implosion/explosion.

Awww.... I wanted to read the explosion. :

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^AeroMechanical:
This is a little immature and sensationalist even by TYT standards.

If it had been a Democrats party conference instead of Republican then the mainstream media would've been all over it and you can guarantee that any immaturity or sensationalism would have been ten-fold over what you see here. At least TYT is cool with LGBT whereas mainstream media would be tutting and frowning at every opportunity.


I doubt that. As an outsider, US news seems as polarized as US politics seems so I would assume that Fox would laugh at the DNC and NBC would laugh at the RNC. However, that aside, this is simply a better story. Liberal, pro-gay rights party has gay people? So? Conservative, pro-bigot rights party has gay people? Scandal!

Which is missing the point. That it would be worse if it was them, even if this was true, doesn't make this any less smug.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

This is a little immature and sensationalist even by TYT standards.


If it had been a Democrats party conference instead of Republican then the mainstream media would've been all over it and you can guarantee that any immaturity or sensationalism would have been ten-fold over what you see here. At least TYT is cool with LGBT whereas mainstream media would be tutting and frowning at every opportunity.

>> ^mintbbb:
Sorry, but a dupe of mine <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/frown.gif">
http://videosift.com/video/Parking-Lamborghini-In-The-Living-Room-In-A-Scyscraper


Thanks Mint. Sorry about that!