@TheSluiceGate
while i agree with your basic premise that choices have consequences.i think you missed the point of this video.
this is about redemption.

in my travels i have come to the conclusion that those who suffer from addiction (of any kind) are battling an emptiness or pain within themselves,in one form or another.
nobody decides to aspire to be a junkie,or an alcoholic and they certainly do not desire to die a slow and painful death,causing massive heartache for those that love them.

the downward spiral is a slow decent into a personal hell and what makes it even more arduous and self-incriminating is that the junkie (at one point) becomes fully aware of the spiral and the self-defeating cycle.they know they cant stop and that creates such a tsunami of guilt and shame it drives them back to the very thing that is destroying them.

that is the beauty of this story.this man found his redemption in the form of jesus christ.
he found forgiveness in christ.
would you deny him this for the simple fact he started on the road to addiction years ago?
who cares if he found salvation in jesus or a talking box of captain crunch.
the fact that he found something that helped give him the strength to deal with his addiction should suffice,no matter what vehicle it was that helped him to defeat his own personal demons.

have you been a junkie?
are you speaking from experience?
should we abandon all those who make bad choices to their own devices?
because i have found that nobody can experience this journey we call life alone and those that have convinced themselves they can are deluding themselves.

"Has been to hell and back"...

... I have a huge problem with the way he's portrayed in this video. It glamorizes the perceived value of having put his life in the toilet for years. Let's remember that this guy was an idiot who took drugs to the point of it ruining his life, and his daughters life - and still didn't quit after his wife died from the very drugs he was taking. These actions don't give him a ticket to sagedom. Among his tattoos he should have one that states - "I am capable of making the worst possible decisions and taking actions that could have led to my death, and made an orphan of my daughter". So where's the moody, weighty video for the guy who tried drugs a few times and decided to stay away from them because they were a bad thing in his life? I'd hold that guy in a lot higher esteem than this idiot.

The moment that he "put his life in gods hands" and took a massive hit of drugs could also have been the moment of his death. His fleeting faith in the possibility of a deity acting as a safety net in his life could have led directly to his death.

To me that is negative.


>> ^Sagemind:

This guy has been to hell and back.
He has reached up and grabbed on to religion and used it to empower himself and find redemption.
He used faith to inspire positivity and truth in his life.
I know people want to shout him down for believing in a God, but how could anyone ever deny him that which saved his life and likely his daughter's life as well?
I know there is a lot of negativity about religion on the Sift but those at the end of their rope can turn around and use religion by embracing it to find grace.
In my mind, this is where faith redeems itself for me. It's that one intangible thing that a person can latch on to when there is nothing else.
On the negative side, Yes, there are always people embraced in religion that seek to exploit people at this stage and all the crap that goes with that. But when you hit the lowest low and you want out of the muck that has become your everyday, sometimes "faith in an idea" can be more powerful than even the chemicals that are used by the scum of the earth (dealers & pushers) to enslave people.
To me that is positive.

This guy has been to hell and back.
He has reached up and grabbed on to religion and used it to empower himself and find redemption.
He used faith to inspire positivity and truth in his life.

I know people want to shout him down for believing in a God, but how could anyone ever deny him that which saved his life and likely his daughter's life as well?

I know there is a lot of negativity about religion on the Sift but those at the end of their rope can turn around and use religion by embracing it to find grace.

In my mind, this is where faith redeems itself for me. It's that one intangible thing that a person can latch on to when there is nothing else.

On the negative side, Yes, there are always people embraced in religion that seek to exploit people at this stage and all the crap that goes with that. But when you hit the lowest low and you want out of the muck that has become your everyday, sometimes "faith in an idea" can be more powerful than even the chemicals that are used by the scum of the earth (dealers & pushers) to enslave people.

To me that is positive.

I'm not really seeing what the big deal is here. The environment is so bland and dead. Where are the animals and people/monsters? IMO this has got nothing on the Red Dead Redemption time lapses out there.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

quality


Quality looks, but its plot is not quality.

Thanks for the info.

http://videosift.com/video/Dragon-Age-Redemption-Nyree-Episode-4-ft-Felicia-Day

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
DA2 ep 4 is up fyi, if you want to sift it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883SZw2FCHo

RAGE is the first game I've played through to the end (single-player) since Red Dead Redemption, and frankly I thought RDR went on for too long. My one real beef with RAGE is not how soon the ending came, but how abrupt it was. I felt like I had no warning that the game was about to be really, sincerely OVER when I flipped that last switch. Also, once the storyline is over, you can't continue playing. If I want to see if I can 100% the game without replaying everything, I *might* be able to reload my last save and backtrack through the enemy citadel so I can do the remaining races I never got to... but then, I probably overlooked at least one of those collectible playing cards for the card game (which I have yet to try).

Still, my overall impression of RAGE was positive -- I really enjoyed it while I was playing, and I expect to play it some more. I got my money's worth.

Wow wow wow, never once did I say American History X promoted anything remotely related to racism. I said the opposite. "Slashed into" doesn't mean "promoted." Slashed into means "hurt" racism... In fact, "slashed into" is about as far from promoting as possible.

Well that was the biggest fail from you I have seen...and I am only half kidding

Next, I meant you would detest the movie but not the free speech. You know, since the movie was made for one purpose only---capitalistic greed. Of course I am assuming the motives of the people who made the film, perhaps wrongly, but I doubt the makers had the best of intentions without the dollars.

And, on the other note, conservatives are happy with both liberties--but only when both types of liberties are slanted in their favor (For example, see your own part where you mentioned free speech.) Liberals tend to favor both liberties less in that self-serving manner, but most still do manipulate them somewhat.

Hrm, your last point, that the alleged coercive aspect of freedoms impeding freedom is interesting.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...
But no, I read it right then.
You obviously don't understand liberty.
For one, American History X is ultimately a powerful story about tolerance, redemption, and forgiveness, and an illustration of the ugliness and pointlessness of racism. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's actually promoting racism, as you say.
For starters, "positive liberty" doesn't say anything about the video. It's not an ideology, or a dogma.
I think you're trying to make a swipe at liberalism by saying it'd be okay with banning such a film, but the truth is we believe in free speech, and wouldn't want it banned, even if it was some sort of racist screed.
But what is free speech? Is it a positive or negative liberty?
In our legal system, it's barely considered a right. It's viewed as a negative liberty, sorta. The government can't constrain your speech, but private organizations may. Legally, you may spout whatever racist speech you like, but if your employer wants to fire you for doing so they can, and media companies can refuse to publish racist content if they like.
Some conservatives get confused about this (because they don't understand liberty), and think free speech is a positive liberty. They think that they should be legally protected from being fired for saying racist things, or that media companies should be legally compelled to publish whatever sort of racist screed they want to publish. Sometimes they even take this to a ridiculous extreme, and think free speech entitles them to a right to not be criticized for what they say.
See the difference yet?
Liberals generally are comfortable with both types of liberty being "real". Conservatives often assert that property, plus some narrow subset of negative liberty (freedom from constraint by government) is the very definition of liberty. Never mind that the net result of that is a very strict set of coercive limits being placed on people's ability to do as they please...

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...
But no, I read it right then.

You obviously don't understand liberty.

For one, American History X is ultimately a powerful story about tolerance, redemption, and forgiveness, and an illustration of the ugliness and pointlessness of racism. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's actually promoting racism, as you say.

For starters, "positive liberty" doesn't say anything about the video. It's not an ideology, or a dogma.

I think you're trying to make a swipe at liberalism by saying it'd be okay with banning such a film, but the truth is we believe in free speech, and wouldn't want it banned, even if it was some sort of racist screed.

But what is free speech? Is it a positive or negative liberty?

In our legal system, it's barely considered a right. It's viewed as a negative liberty, sorta. The government can't constrain your speech, but private organizations may. Legally, you may spout whatever racist speech you like, but if your employer wants to fire you for doing so they can, and media companies can refuse to publish racist content if they like.

Some conservatives get confused about this (because they don't understand liberty), and think free speech is a positive liberty. They think that they should be legally protected from being fired for saying racist things, or that media companies should be legally compelled to publish whatever sort of racist screed they want to publish. Sometimes they even take this to a ridiculous extreme, and think free speech entitles them to a right to not be criticized for what they say.

See the difference yet?

Liberals generally are comfortable with both types of liberty being "real". Conservatives often assert that property, plus some narrow subset of negative liberty (freedom from constraint by government) is the very definition of liberty. Never mind that the net result of that is a very strict set of coercive limits being placed on people's ability to do as they please...

Episode 1

>> ^vex:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Greed: when you don't want the same things I want, in the exact same amounts

greed
n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary


Like wanting to send your kid to the best schools? Deserves and needs is a loaded word, as is greed. The real problem with this video is that capitalism isn't about wages, it is about ownership of things. The ONLY reason you can talk about wages is because of the price model that capitalism follows. Talk of wages in other systems and mixed systems is very difficult.

Of note, the 70s break is also very close to the end of the gold standard for the US. Also, corporate charters have nothing to do with capitalism, per say, but of governments. You could have communists corporations, or even households, I know my house is mostly a communism. I find this video's title, and most discussions of capitalism foul play, as no one is actually talking about not owning the fruits of their labor; the heart of capitalistic intent. Banking, wall street, and other economic features could be expressed differently in capitalism, in other words. They aren't PART of the ESSENTIAL structure, but emergent from the economic and social conditions of our day. You can cause mutations, however, that look like anomalies. Retirement funds are an example. The start of the idea of the retirement fund was in WWII. Wages were locked, but not intensives, and thus, the unnatural birth of retirement funds were born. After wages were unlocked, the slowly died. The same could be said of loans, wall street, and corporate explosion. Years of inflationary Fed policy has aggregated enough wealth in concentrated vestibules as to drive the democracy of the dollar into the tyranny of the aristocracy.

There was always in inherent fear of this tyranny coming to exist in a free market. A sorts of driving off the cliff. I fear that the fear of this reality caused those of a liberal persuasion to make the argument for safe guards to prevent this unknown quantity, and for good reason. Life, she has a cruel irony at times. The problem, as I see it is the safeguards are too distant from our eye, and our care. Those things made to make the system immune from this hypothetical situation has enabled those evil doorers great ability to carry out that goal. Far from our eye and care, they manipulate taxes, tariffs, rules and regulations meant to stave off their evils in their favor. The most powerful were able to bypass the rules meant to stave off their existence. They, in effect, created their existence from the process meant to keep them from existence, anti-entropy. Now, they have so much to loose that subtle reform will be very unlikely.

So high the unwilling to fall then to let it happen.

It will take the outcry and action of 300million people to fix, the manipulation of politics will no do. This will take action of feet than laws, lives than rules, actions than decisions. The objective clear, the voice unwavering, the resolve unfaltering. A march will not bridge it, a man will not solve it, a law will not stop it. Only with the lifeblood of your everyday action will you dent it. This is why I believe that REAL capitalism is the answer. Only with 300 million legislators can you avoid the tampering. The moral penance for daily dollar more greatly considered. Less reliance on bodies that fall prey to the hidden tampering of interested powers. Our safeguards imploded, our nations blood exploited.

Individual redemption must be claimed by the individual, always corrupted the voice that speaks for another.


(edit, typos sigh)

>> ^Lann:

That's funny, I was JUST looking at this.


So this lucky guy has a almost full body cast of felicia day?

>> ^shagen454:

Funny how PC love is coming back. PC will ALWAYS be the best people, never, EVAR! forget that. I only wish I could play Red Dead Redemption...


Shooters and consoles fit together as good as keyboards and FIFA, or RTS with a joystick, or driving games with a mouse.

Funny how PC love is coming back. PC will ALWAYS be the best people, never, EVAR! forget that. I only wish I could play Red Dead Redemption...