There are a number of other techniques for suppression or elimination of particlular pest species around the world. Check out the Sterile Insect Technique being used against the screwworm fly which has already 100% eliminated that particular nasty from the US and Mexico. There is also the Daughterless Carp Project in Australia aimed at eliminating an invasive carp species from the Darling River system. It involves releasing genetically modified male carp that are incapable of producing female offspring. Unlike 20 or 30 years ago I think the possible consequences of these various techniques are now being considered.

Maybe she left out some ingredients she took for granted? I dunno, or it was all just bland ass food built off of post depression/WWII tastebuds. If her grandma was like my grandma, she was born in the depression, all the men in her family went to WWII, Korean War, she's a product of the Cold War, sons in Vietnam, and on and on -- she's had some rough first world problems shaping her from the get go. Poor ass family and then living off grandpa's Navy pay check.

So it may also be a way to make do with very little. My dad has some stories about my grandma feeding him some nasty concoctions and he declares spam no more. Grandma, despite having money now, still makes some gross ass food made out of random cheap things from the grocer. Campbell's + ANYTHING. Spam + ANYTHING. Saltine crackers, baby. That's the story of one of my grandma's at least.

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

@HugeJerk come on man,now you're just engaging in semantics,while ignoring voodoos point.

ok,lets play the semantics game and change the scenario,and see how comfortable you are with those scenarios:

@VoodooV has a video of your family member smoking weed...in a park.

@VoodooV has a video of your family member participating in a winter solstice ritual and his companies owner is a strict,religious fundamentalist.

(and before you throw out that firing over religious reasons is illegal,understand that the companies boss is not an idiot.your family member will be fired for other reasons,but rest assured..he is GONE).

@VoodooV has a video of your family member meeting with a lady of the evening.

would you like me to continue?
because in every one of these scenarios NOBODY was harmed,yet each one of those activities could bring great harm to your family member.

smoking weed harms no one,but it is illegal still in many states and many companies have a strict "drug-free' policy.(which i think is retarded)

engaging in a religious ritual,conforming to your family members belief system,harms no one,but is in direct conflict with the religious practices of the person who signs his checks.this would likely result in termination..with predjudice..but wait,thats against the law!! damn..foiled again!
aaaaah,but what is this?
the boss could just use another reason for termination.
the argument has been made that the owner of the company can do what he pleases..it is his company after all and he views paganism as heretical and against the wishes and dictates of GOD.
so your family member can just kiss his job goodbye.

or how about prostitution?
nobody was harmed.
sex between consensual adults for the exchange of currency.
but..its illegal...so bye bye to job.

and if @VoodooV was a particularly venal and nasty human being ,who REALLY wanted to impose his will upon your family member.he could just send those tapes to every new job your family member may have the luck to get.send them to creditors.apartment managers.etc etc.

@VoodooV could literally destroy your family members life,just by sending a video with an implied threat.

"if you do not take action about this person,i will expose YOU"

most people do not have the temerity to stand up to that form of bullying.they have businesses to run,bills to pay and families to protect.

and it is also why this tactic is so effective,because it WORKS.browbeating with the intent to force submission to a set of moral ideals held by a select,self righteous few.

it is like the dark ages!! but with broadband and iphones!!

so you better behave.
better obey all laws,real and social.
or the focus could become YOU,and not some turdnugget that is easy to hate.

wow that one girl has nasty atitude

My opinion is hardly based off of simply just this interaction. It's years worth observation of how he interacts with guests on his show and seeing him live on stage.
He is not appear to be a very pleasant person to interact with. Don't let the subject matter of this clip get in the way of a pretty nasty personality. Many others would have answered Colbert with way more grace and tactfulness is all I'm trying to say.

Really really good vid, certainly gives a very good overview of the chain of events that cause global warming to be life ending.

From what he's explained, it seems to be - less ice at the poles -> less difference in temperature between hot and cold areas -> less ocean currents -> ocean anoxia -> hydrogen sulfide.

Many of the other issues would cause local crises, but living on a planet with no ocean life and with poisonous gas everywhere seems pretty nasty.

That shit is hella nasty. Still makes my mouth water when i watch it.

There is absolutely no suppression.
It's not analogous to 'banning books', it's more like not checking out and reading certain books, or certain authors. No author has the right to force their 'work' on others. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
You simply don't have a right to 'be acknowledged'. That is not a right. EDIT: Freedom of speech is not the freedom to force others to listen.
You absolutely SHOULD be able to remove someone from your personal existence. As you said, there are even laws to do it in real life, which actually effects the actions of the other party, unlike this, which is more like blocking their phone number and emails at best. Do you think it should not be possible to block phone calls and emails?
How do you find that offensive? Why do you feel that a person's right to force their views on another person outweighs that other person's right to NOT have a person's views forced on them?
Again, NO ONE IS SILENCED. How do you not get that? To censor, you must hide the work from OTHERS, not simply not look at it.
I clearly explained the reasons I asked for it, you just don't get it for some reason.
The behavior you described is exactly what was happening, but was done in such a way that the moderators said it didn't rise to the level of banning or even hobbling them (although I still can't understand how, since at least one of them was repeatedly using the N word, others using the C word to describe any woman, others making nasty personal insults, etc.) Since ban and hobble weren't happening (now ban, THAT's censorship...but for cause), something else was needed, this was it.

First, it's not censorship in any way shape or form. Not reading someone's post is simply not what the word 'censorship' means.

Second, it's actually not what people said about me that got my goat (mostly...Chingalera did make numerous personal attacks though), it was what I saw as repeated intentional provocation, racist, misogynist, and other hateful postings that, while they were designed to not cross the line and get the people banned, were certainly not what I come to the sift to read. When those posts were unavoidable because of others replying/quoting, even though the posters were ignored, it made the sift a place where reading the comments section was becoming intolerable. Now I don't have that problem.
(there are also a couple of people I ignore because they asked me to, not because they were nasty. I do wish I had the option to select who's totally ignored, or at least a way to un-ignore those on that list, but no solution is perfect, and this one was the best I could think of that was possible.

Once more I'll thank @lucky760 for his work helping me with this, it kept me from leaving the sift...I'll leave that for you to decide if that's a good or a bad thing.

My question for you, why does my not reading a few sifter's posts make you think someone has been censored anywhere besides my screen?

Damn straight! It sounds NASTY!

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

Yeah. Pretty horrible way to get a haircut.

Regardless, there's no way that concentration of aerosol in the car wouldn't have driven them out of there unless they were doing something deliberate. I don't buy the original poster's comments. That anti-static stuff, at least the stuff I've encountered - smells nasty.

I spoiled myself. But nevertheless, that is one nasty rig. One of these days I'll watch it... one of these days...