I'm afraid you can lump me in the same group. I don't understand why it is offensive to tell women to smile. I'm also in the same boat as others here in that i have literally never, in my existence, heard a male tell a woman to smile in any way that wasn't contextual. Thirdly, i'm struggling to imagine a way in which the directive to "Smile!" is offensive.

You say "stop making it about YOU!" yet you're speaking about a video that is trying to personalise an issue. I hate to even get involved in this argument, because i believe modern day feminism is more about finding an issue than it is about correcting any number of issues that really exist and need attention (ie. wage inequality).

I think you'd serve the cause a lot better if you tried to understand why people make those comments instead of chastising them for making it. You're missing an opportunity to explain the problem better - you've engaged people, people are interested and talking about it. Now is the time to explain it so that those who don't understand can understand. And if you can present it in a believable way, you will convince me.

However if you stand there, fold your arms and say "ugh, guys!" then i'm going to insist that you're behaving in a sexist way.

In my upbringing, i was subject to women abusing their advantageous legal position when it comes to custody of children and such (i was the child). I was witness to women who claimed abuse when there was no abuse, and thankfully only saw a very small effect of what can happen when such false accusations are made. I've seen a close male relative go through divorces in which he made his best attempt to share the assets of the divorce, whilst the female partner did what they could to claw as much profit as possible, eventually taking a completely unfair share (all of it) in one case.

However, i am rational enough to understand that not all people are like that, and that my experiences are not common. If i was given the opportunity to campaign about father's rights, i'd do it clearly and in a way that people could empathise and sympathise with. I wouldn't generalise and i certainly wouldn't tell them not to personalise, because empathy is all about being able to personalise an issue.

If men are arguing with the point, perhaps the point is not being explained well enough. And if it keeps happening, perhaps that's an even stronger message. I wouldn't argue with videos that campaign against domestic violence - which i also haven't seen happen! - and that's because the campaign is well presented so that i am able to grasp the problem.

I don't understand why what this video refers to is a female issue. Add to that the fact that i have never seen it happen with such frequency that it was notably a female-only issue.

Until i am able to understand why this is specifically a female issue, i'm afraid i will consider this video to be sexist in that it addresses a universal issue as a solely female problem.

I'll try again at a point-by-point answer for yas but geez man, you seem thicker than most.

I CHOSE to pester your banning-manner repeatedly because you were cold-hearted and in-general, the matter-of-fact un-welcomingly rude person to potentials who obviously either had some language-barriers some of them, while others simply did not read the long-winded faq-sheet buried in that un-intutive portion of the site map (notwithstanding, MOST of the fuckers you ban are spamtacular and obviously not giving a damn an anyhow....GOOD JOB. ATTA-BOY. Clean the place up, not slighting you for that aspect of your fun here).

Your didactic reasoning supports your hollow assumptions (if such feeble tripe could be called that) and here in these latest and repeated insults and accusations concerning myself all we see are petulant forays into your own limitations in the realm of deductive reasoning at best, or 180 degrees off-kilter at their crudest and worst. MEANING, your assumptions of my legal status and sexual proclivities in particular, as you struggle at what seems justification for your delusional rants. You're basically unilaterally seeking to defame my personal integrity and character because you feel bad about me having poked you so much about yer ban-user fun here.m Real simple. Not too much thinking required, and you are over-thinking to stroke your own, knight-in-rusty-sheriff's-badge honor, plain and fucking simple.

I tried the last comment to show you your misinterpretation of meaning by using the definition of 'haitus', the same which has no fixedm limitation other than that of the will of the vacationer. Read a fucking dictionary maybe, with a view to meaning rather than the view of how it suits your own confabulation?

I didn't say did I, that I was taking anything but a hiatus, which could be long or short....and if you know me at all you know I won't stand for insolent crackers who in my absence, with a personal hard-on to burn me and shit all over my work and time logged here on this site, one of which I have been on since near it's inception, ya thick lump?. Did you think I'd let the place pull a kronospissant on me again? From the likes of who?! You may want to get a fucking clue.

You need some some growin'-up there fatwa (look it up) if ya think my skin ain't thicker than yer skull.

You take shit to pedantically literal to be hanging your shit in my store and expecting me to take you anything more than a seriously misanthropic humanoid.

Tired of being polite with you chicco, yer obviously in need of some quality human interaction and maybe some therapy to deal with the Aspberger's, unless yer dysfunction be something simpler to counterman. I am unqualified to determine such as, "I Am Not A Mental Health Professional."

Ain't 'private' anymore either, your shit screams abuse of the site, for all to see.

Why does it feel like my throat is swollen into a lump?

And what is this liquid gathering in my eyes?

Weird.

Would you argue that whatever academics say about major world conflicts if they aren't parroting other agreed-upon-by-experts musings could be part of the overall codification of these events in world subconscious and conscious with a view to shaping minds for the next conflict to be orchestrated and implemented? The simple or complex aspects of any sacrificial lump of money and people can always be rendered into the essence of the insanity of the same with a simple and universally-agreed-upon homo-sapient common-sense.
Eveyone thinks 'ol Tom Edison was a goddamn genius and that Chris Columbus wasn't a complete cockbag posing as some ground-breaking explorer as well. What does the tinkerer and and a boat captain have in common? A lot of assholes have written tomes about both of them to deify them. One was an egotistical half-ass and the other a dirty fucking example of a Spaniard working for a cunt whore empire-builder.

ChaosEngine, your lack of any point reads COMPLETELY retarded and it's a not-so-cloaked personal attack at someone much more intellectually honest than yourself.

Shut up Stupid you don't get to post a shit whiny propaganda piece like this hunk of crap and not get taken to task for it. Now take your lumps you Breitbart wanna be.

It's this kind of attitude that allows the ONLY PEOPLE to be in the public spectrum calculating, over coached little nothings. We're the ones that are the victims here, we make it so no actual human beings can get elected because we make it a "job" only for sociopaths.

You go after someone who's not funny trying to make a joke while on a Late Night Talk Show, and whine that she's called people Knuckleheads. What did she hurt your feelings? Grow the Fuck Up this shit has nothing to do with the argument about Obamacare, it has nothing to do with "Marketing" it's a shit hatchet piece by some fucking morons and you post that shit here and DON'T fucking destroy it? You're not this stupid.

Also the Health Care system is so immeasurably fucked up due to bureaucracy that instituting a SINGLE PAYER System would actually lower the debt. We wouldn't go bankrupt at all, we'd come out ahead. A majority of Americans supported it back in the 2004 election, except the corporations which is why it wasn't brought up during the campaigns as an option. Till fucking GM learned that hey they're spending $2000 per car more in Detroit than Canada because of health care costs.

You can look up the Australian Health Care system on your own, suffice to say it's not brought up in the media as an example of socialized medicine because it's easier to pick holes in the UK and Canadian systems.

The grander point is, you're being a hack with this crap. This is the kinda shit we take the fuck apart because it's retarded. If a liberal was going around saying "Oh Laura Bush called young people a knucklehead" we would be right to fucking destroy that liberal douche. This is hacky propaganda, quit placing yourself in the same corner as these pieces of shit from Campus Reform.

It will only be a choice of one international criminal over another unless thoughtful citizens ditch both parties provided for anyone to vote for, and perform the voter's coup d'etat.....The naivete that you have a choice in the matter without taking a real choice, is a systemic disease.You are not alone in your inebriation on the political-Koolaid beverage.

Try smashing a few televisions and encourage others to do so. It's cathartic and will free your mind, Neo.

Anti-Obama people aren't trolls by the way @ChaosEngine-They're either seriously deluded into thinking that they are not in some sort of state of willful denial that the prescribed systems of electoral chicanery actually functions as they blindly assume as is spelled-out since they were kids in elementary school, or they can see through the ruse that is, a government by and for her peoples.

Lump me in such a simplistic and obtuse category as 'Obama-for-or-anti' and you may or not, recognize yourself in the former category.

If there's a 'guy' with his finger on the nuclear missile (otherwise known as a false-flag event), it's the same guy or guys who called-in the drone-strike. Who is the 'imaginary' guy you speak of?? Ask yourself, is the insane scenario your offered-up, even possible? Bad guys, good guys? Gimme a break, you're smarter than that.

I believe that "ignore" is the operative and self-delusional tag word here. Keep ignoring the obvious. Seems to work well for some to quell fear of the unknown.

'Republicans bad, democrats good', a broken-record and at least 10 other peep's in any room of folks' discussing politics-as-usual, comforting "safety phrase."

All it sounds like to me is apes in a cage, bellowing for a nutritive meal and the freedom to roam to find it for themselves.

It's 2014 lantern-five-three, nothings a fucking toss-up anymore....It's an insidious program.

Choice and chance are illusory in the political realm.

I studied English and Philosophy in school and have continued reading a lot of utopian/dystopian literature since. My familiarity with economics and economic history pales in contrast, but the close relationship with subjects I am interested in has caused me to spend some time and consideration learning what I can.

That said, when I see a video like this I lump it into the same pseudo intellectual/science/news that things like Bill O'Reilly, TYT, Kirk Cameron, Creationists and bigots bring to mind.

Why did I watch this? Well I'm open to listening to legitimate and informative critiques of socioeconomic systems. If they are particularly good it can lead to all sorts of follow up questions and inquiries. I get bored while i'm "slaving" away at work so I put things on in the background...

Then there videos like this. There are very few facts throughout the entire video. The analogies used are misleading. The terrible acts and downfalls of groups, individuals, or particular ideologies are often blown out of proportion entirely. There is no nuanced investigation, no insights, nothing but a self satisfied narrator with droll delivery.

Thanks for rummaging through my videos for dead links. I'll pass on using my downvote on this video.

I'm not confusing anything. Atheism is, by definition, the opposite of Theism. If you profess that you have some belief that there may be 'something', but you want scientific proof, then you have placed yourself in the definition of Agnostic. You can identify yourself as Atheist, which is what many do since Dawkins released 'The God Delusion', because he chose to try and force/shame/delude Agnostics into just calling themselves Atheists.

As far as a strawman, would you say that Dawkins is an Atheist? If you say yes, then perhaps you would like to know that on page 70 of the aforementioned book [Dawkins] views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice". I imply nothing, while you personally may not feel this way, a well recognized New Atheist felt strongly enough to put it into print in his own book.

In any case, I understand your opinion. My opinion simply differs, I feel that you are a Theist if you believe deeply that there is 'something' of a god out there, an Agnostic if you are unsure and would like proof, or an Atheist if you feel that there is no such thing. You can certainly lump me with Atheism based on my commented beliefs, but I will lump you with Agnosticism based on yours.

As far as I can see, the only difference between the Mormon religion and most* others is just a question of age. But I -do- agree with you.

* I say most because there are one or two flavors of Buddhism that don't really seem to -be- religions, although they get lumped in with them.

Of bankers and Nazi's?? The Tibetan Buddhist would simply say of these illusions that life in this incarnation is suffering, lumping thievery and murder no matter the scale into a similar karmic bowl of inevitability, and give it a stir...all the while mumbling the Dharma.

Why does the Dali Llama smile all the time?
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Good Drugs.

...and the cop isn't in any trouble, even for filing a false police report? What about his compatriots that helped him cover it up? Nothing? Hmmmm...
Without vigorous prosecution or this kind of abusive asshat, these kinds of videos will end up being used (I hope successfully) in court when someone (or many some ones) kills a cop in 'self defense'. They will be used as proof that citizens needed to defend themselves from being abducted by the gang of thugs that have replaced many police departments. If the 'good' cops don't treat these 'bad cops' worse than normal criminals, they should never complain when they are lumped in with them as thugs and are treated as such with the accompanying lack of respect and compliance.
Dude needs his wife/child/mother to have her face smashed while he watches, then maybe he'd get it that it's wrong.

Oh my god, I just shit sugar lumps!

*promote

It has all the elements of a Hollywood summer blockbuster hit -- lone protagonist makes a stand, horrified government agencies on the defense, and the beltway media missing the mark.
Unfortunately, this isn't a movie (yet). The most egregious aspect of this story, in my biased opinion, is the way journalists have so casually been lumped in and brushed under the rug by the Obama administration. For instance, before the Snowden story broke, the Department of Justice was taking heat for wiretapping and collecting information about journalists (the Fourth branch of democracy) doing their jobs. This dangerous precedent -- all in the name of national security -- leads to a less informed public, which undermines the integrity of the nation to hold itself accountable.
That said, I just hope Ashton Kutcher doesn't land the role of Snowden.

I dated a woman who's uncle was retired from the CIA. Around 2001 or so, in a candid, personal conversation, well after he'd retired, he told us that every piece of data, without exception, sent over "computer networks", was backed up by the government/CIA (I lump them together despite history showing their disparity).
I believe he retired in the early 90's, and I recall being surprised that the government was on to, or rather suspicious of, the technology that early (so many things they're incompetent in, and so many they're not).
Regardless, I've never wanted to live in, or support, (passively or knowingly), a country that would partake in such things. That definitely wasn't the beginning of my mistrust and suspicion, but the memory comes back to me today hearing the recent court-orders.

Absolutely, men are abused, and absolutely that fact needs much more attention, but the situation for men and that for women is not the same. On average, men are stronger, which gives them a kind of power in a relationship that most women do not have. When we focus on domestic violence perpetrated by men, we are mainly focusing on acts that stem from that power. That is a fundamental and Important part of the reality, and lumping all discussion of domestic abuse into the same gender-free pile would do a disservice to our understanding of the topic.
You imply that because there are other evils in the world, that this one should receive less attention than it does. That's not the case. What the captain was saying shouldn't be tempered; if anything should be amplified. Violence and other abuse perpetrated by women against men deserves special focus As Well. If you find a good video about that, I'll happily promote it.