Did you even watch the videos?

Even if you ignore the beginning with McIntosh stating "I 'politically remix' media to fit my agenda"..

The rest of that video is just screen captures of Sarkeesian's twitter.

Her twitter posts parrot those of McIntosh.

McIntosh & Sarkeesian are a couple. McIntosh the brains, Sarkeesian is the face.

She's not even a "gamer"!!

Google Sarkeesian + Exposed

Google Sarkeesian + teleseminar

Google Sarkeesian + early years

Google Sarkeesian + Bart Baggett

Sarkeesian is a troll. She's making money, nearly half a million, off it.

She's gone from "yearly income to monthly income", a phrase you'll recognize if you watch the Sarkeesian + teleseminar vids.

Sorry you can't wrap you head around my dislike of fraudsters.

I feel bad for you. You probably get caught up in ponzi schemes and duped by "homeless" women with babies on their hips.

I'm sorry, Newtboy, that you're so entrenched in your beliefs that you can't see my perspective.

Btw, how old are you? I'm a 27 black/hispanic male. I wonder about your life experience and what makes you so.. sheltered? gullible? trusting?

Anywho, thanks for contributing to the sift.

I almost bought a parrot owned by a truck driver. It cursed like a sailor! The pet store had to keep in in a separate room because it scared away customers. Funny as hell.

I also heard a parrot that was owned by a widow who recently died. It just cried in an old woman's voice. Cried and cried. Saddest thing I ever heard.

Basically I'll throw in my opinion, which is really just to parrot someone else's... I'm guessing me and @eric3579 have fairly close to the same layout--screen wise (size or perspective), resolution wise, and so on. Since I have the same issues and concerns eric has (like channels and other "inclusions" a video belongs in). Right now it is harder to find some of the details for the videos posted--or they need to be in a more simpler and easier to access spot (but, as noted--this may be due to a size/resolution issue; since I don't know if everything scales correctly yet); which makes me hesitant to make any changes to any videos. But, as noted (and as I found out later on) the opt-in opt-out buttons are found nearby, allowing me to figure out what I need to, until we decide on a fully finished product.

One question I might ask is, does the new site--as of right now--already scale correctly no matter what resolution you are at? So if you go WAY up into the "4K" range, will the site look really bizarre (I know that there will already be far more "space"; but, is it setup right now to arrange all the site items to display in their correct positions)? Inversely, for a long time cellphones were forcing site admins to create a mobile edition of their website(s); but, thanks to smartphones (plus their fast CPUs, and 1080p screens) this is being phased out.

Keep chomping at the bit @lucky760; I'm sure with our feedback and your willingness to get this finished so quickly will indeed help us get more than likely a bit of what we all want out of this (making the community as a whole basically happy with the finished product; and as mentioned, hopefully helping newer users). Keep up the good job.

If I had a parrot like that around my wife and I, that thing would make your ears turn red. Is my wife horny this morning? No, just the parrot. Nasty parrot.

Onto a secondary topic, it includes the "media frenzy" and the contract clauses that force players, coaches, and others to appear before the media... Plus the media in general, when it comes to the Superbowl (but, this has to do with our country; or at the least certain segments and populations of our country). But, really it's about the general stupidity and levels we have turned this ONE event into!

Only a few interviews are worth looking at typically and they tend to be AFTER a game, not before it (as that amounts to "what ifs", "probably might", "we sure can try", and "if I win, I'll go to 'insert Measleland or another place here' with my wife/kid/family/parrot"). I absolutely hate the fourteen hour pre-game show that the NFL and the channel hosting this *thing* that apparently people watch, that is quite like a: "super-fabulous-orgasmic-serotonin ovulating-dopamine excreting-heroine junkie nerve conduction transfer-fourteen people high at a rave experimenting in an orgy with all the holes and toys available"... OK, so maybe that is a bit too far, but still...! It really is the most "grandiose" setups for a game, that doesn't need such a grandiose setup.

The should just make it a damned national holiday already--everyone already stays home or is basically forced to, since one half of their family is probably glued to the TV for quite awhile.. Although I know we always "had" these interviews on the TV, but we never really listened to them, because they bring out 40 people who essentially ALL say the same thing (the only difference is if it is a different team and or if they are extremely religious--they will then tell you how their team will win, "...no matter what...", and then if they are religious proceed to randomly give you the, "God is on our side...", mantra...which always made me laugh--literally, out-loud).

Then they cut back to the ex-coach's and arm-chair quarterbacks who have been given a one day opportunity to tell the world what they think, and how he game will go (and it never does).

Needless to say, I HATE, with a passion, the "pre-game show" (which didn't exist in it's ridiculous form for a VERY longtime until the late 80's and early 90's). I'd rather them move all of their prime-time TV shows that will not be shown that night, due to the game, to that period of the day and let us watch that instead before the game (then they can give us a modest 45-30 minute pre-game; not this 5-hour marathon of ads and marketing, with a bunch of talking faces trying as hard as they can to make a name for themselves in that time-span).

Only people like "Beast Mode" can save that time allotment and make it worthwhile (if you think it is "entertaining", you REALLY need to stay away a bit from Football, and I'm saying that as a concerned friend...)--because right now, although a lot of people flip their TV over to the channel with it on...it is a massive waste of money and time--that somehow generates massive amounts of money (talk about "very careful" and "orchestrated" money setups and schemes; but luckily they have idiotic companies paying them gigantic sums of money for their commercials to air...even before the game comes on...). And, I wish people wouldn't just flip over to it, to have it on in the background (as most of the time I've noticed, whether it's a game at my house, someone else's OR an actual Superbowl party--no one watches that crap, it just sits on that channel...making them "think" they are getting ratings, but they actually aren't. It's kind of like saying that people go to Tailgate parties to park cars and see how neat the cement is...

"How come no one thought of this earlier?"

That's like the FIRST thing I thought of when someone showed me the Parrot AR for the first time. "Doesn't look like it can hold that large a gun. Maybe a .22 or .38. No good for hunting. Maybe for flushing out game..."

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence? Are you not then at this time simply parroting things to me that you don't really understand, not being a paleontologist yourself?

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

They aren't actually the same thing; one has scientific evidence to back it up, the other does not. It does not logically follow that because microevolution takes place, macroevolution also must take place. It is the secular creation story which presupposes it, but isn't supported by the evidence.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power. There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

took a whole 30 seconds just for these links.
go ahead..read them...or are you too much a pussy to realize that maybe..juuust maybe..your information is wrong and possibly should be re-examined.

the intelligent man accepts new information and evolves his thinking in accordance with the new information.creating a new paradigm.

the tool will continue to parrot and hold onto tired tropes because he finds them comforting and aligned with his understandings.

i like you man,aint got a single problem with ya but when you post ridiculous shit like you just did....im calling ya out.

why?
because i like ya and i truly think you are a better man than the knucklehead you sometimes portray here.

so..
/lights a smoke
lets go grab a beer and enjoy the warmer weather..
and the sucking dick thing?
yeah...that still costs extra.

@bobknight33
you are confusing a political argument with a scientific one.

as @bcglorf has pointed out,the science is already In and established.the debate is on the relative parameters i.e: how much/little the affects will manifest.
so while it has been established their IS climate change and man HAS affected that change.the debate is the varying degrees and the level of impact.

so we know there will be a global effect,the debate is HOW and WHEN it will manifest,and on a smaller scale,just how much influence humankind is responsible.

some predict an extinction level catastrophe,while other predictions are not quite as apocalyptic,but the debate on whether or not climate change is real..is over.

because that is a scientific debate.

now in the political arena,whose job is to obfuscate any relevant facts to muddy the argument to propel the interests of extremely monied and powerful interests,they create a faux debate to give the appearance that the debate is still ongoing and the science is not settled.

which is exactly what this video is addressing.
remember,they dont have to win the argument.they just have to make a reasonable sounding argument..even if based on bullshit...to make you think.."well,...maybe" and they GOTCHA!

so you can make this a liberal vs conservative argument if you wish,but i would just point out that you playing the game exactly they way they have set it up.to manipulate you.

as for your assertion of "liberal owned media".
dude...
stop parroting that tired old trope that does not hold up to one minute of scrutiny.you are literally doing the plutocrats work FOR them.
every outlet of media in the united states is owned and operated by FIVE companies.

FIVE.

and not a single one could even remotely be considered "liberal",because that does not serve their interests.

this debate is simply NOT a political debate,it is a scientific debate.
plain and simple...learn to recognize the difference buddy.

and stop being a tool for fuck sakes.../slap
you are better than that.

and just a side note,for my own personal pleasure and enjoyment:
@dannym3141 you are my fucking hero brother! between you and @newtboy i struggle to hold onto my cynicism around both of you.

you guys give me hope.

now lets go grab a smoke @bobknight33 cuz these pansies wont let me smoke inside and i have to do it on the patio and they keep trying to get me to drink that godawful "redbull" when crystal meth does a much better job.

sheesh..kids these days.

ok..enough ranting for today and smacking bob around.
ya'all stay awesome.

@bobknight33

Please tell me what your experience is with the scientific community. Do not waffle or sidestep the issue but answer exactly what the extent of your experience with scientific research is, and if necessary how that positions you to judge scientific material.

Please also provide three examples from three separate (and recent) peer reviewed (and published, i.e. forming part of the scientific argument) scientific research papers from approximately the last 4 years (since 2010) that provides something illogical as a foundation argument or any particular conclusion. (You realise of course that even 3,5,10, 100 out of 10 thousand is meaningless, but i know that you can't even understand the layout of a scientific paper, nevermind find 3 examples of an illogical statement in a scientific paper.... even my professors would struggle with that.)

I'm not going out of my way to be a dick here @bobknight33 .. but if you tried to give people medical advice (chemotherapy is illogical propaganda!) then you would be expected to have an expertise in medicine. So don't run away from your responsibility.

This shouldn't be a difficult challenge for you, being as you are so certain and so correct that the science is illogical propaganda. I've had to accept things that ran completely counter to my intuition, so if climate change science is bull then as soon as you prove it, i'm on board.

So go ahead, explain to me simply and clearly what makes it bullshit science, or you're going to have to admit that you don't even have the first clue what you're talking about (as i strongly suspect).

Believe climate SCIENCE, do not believe what politicians and industry leaders tell you about climate science - ASK A FUCKING SCIENTIST. And most of all - @bobknight33 - it is NOT ok to pretend to understand science and lie to people about it, you deceptive, brain-dead parrot. Well, having said that, at least parrots have redeeming features.

Biologists are learning that corvids -- crows and ravens -- may be more intelligent than parrots. I sometimes wonder why no one has suggested marketing crows as pets -- they could probably easily adapt to our environment as they are everywhere in our cities. They could probably even be trained by law enforcement for useful work.

Ok, the longer i watched it the funnier it got, and i was totally confused by it at first.. The one with the paper airplane that recently hit the footballer on live TV slayed me. 5:50 with the slow motion replay with slow motion audio, the cats and the parrot around 8 mins. Someone's dedication should be seriously commended.

But this parrot isn't dead!

Parroting newsspeak ? Ha !! Thats really funny.... THIS LINK IS ABOUT NBC FIRING A REPORTER... DUH!!!