Well, I'm about to get down voted into oblivion, but I have to state this as bluntly as possible.

This is the most perverted kind of propaganda that can be trotted out by someone, and it sickens me to see it. Glen is absolutely correct in every fact he points out, and is in that respect, doing nothing but telling the truth and educating his audience with things they likely didn't know before, and should have. It would seem that should be an unqualified good thing then, but it's not.

What makes this offensive propagandizing to me is the absolutely deliberate omission of equally true, relevant and significant facts that Glen can't help but be aware of. His sole purpose for the omission is that it suddenly shifts things from black and white into the gray that audiences don't like as much.

I'll start from the most important point, and the very premise of the talk, why do they hate us? There is a bigger question though that is even more illuminating, and it is why to they(jihadist terrorists) hate and kill their fellow Islamic countrymen and neighbours? The fact here is that jihadi terrorists before 9/11 and even more so since, have killed tens and hundreds of times as many middle eastern muslims than they have white western infidels. Glen points out plenty of reasons people can have to be upset with America over it's past actions, which is legit in itself, but NONE of those reasons explain why these jihadists target there own fellow middle eastern muslims for the exact same violence and retribution America faced on 9/11. The fact this makes plain is that the jihadi terrorists will hate not only us, but everyone who is not willing to join them unconditionally. They are not the misunderstood, historically slighted and unjustly maligned people Glen's talk might lead people to think of them as. They(jihadi terrorists) do not deserve our sympathy or apologies, their countrymen and neighbours that are their biggest victims do.

Glen also goes on to list the deaths from sanctions on Iraq as an American crime. Apparently Saddam's horrific(then American approved) war on Iran, his genocide of the Kurds, his extensive use of chemical weapons in both, his complete seizure of Kuwait and his genocide of Iraqi Shiites are not relevant to the discussion of placing sanctions on his country. In Glen's discussion, despite this laundry list of crimes against humanity, Saddam is entirely innocent and not in anyway to blame for the children starving in his country while he continued to build himself new palaces and kept his personal guard and secret police forces well equipped and well fed. How is one to take this seriously?

Finally, Glen omits a terrifically important American crime in East Timor that Bin Laden listed. No, sadly it's not our tacit support for the pro Islamic genocide of the people there in the past, but it was America's support for an end to that genocidal repression and support for a free and independent East Timor. This was listed near the very top of American crimes. When Zarqawi blew up the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, he was very clear that it wasn't for Iraqi children dead at the hands of American sanctions. It was because Sérgio Vieira de Mello(killed in the blast) helped over see the transition to a free East Timor.

I'm afraid I am beyond disappointed by talks like this, I find them offensive and contemptible.

Revenge Synonyms;
noun. vengeance - retaliation - retribution - reprisal
verb. avenge - retaliate - wreak - requite - pay back

Your "arguments" revolve around semantics, and glib statements.These, my friend, are not an arguments at all. I have defended my position, whereas you have nothing to offer in serious defense of yours. At best your "views" are fluffy, idealistic nonsense, which only reflect how you think justice would be best served. Get into the real world. You could start by asking the victims of serious crime whether they are happy that the criminal who killed a loved one will be allowed back into society. Get some coherent, rational, factual information about peoples views on crime and punishment, and then try and debate. In the mean time, stop wasting my time with any more puerile comments (you can use your dictionary to look up puerile).

I don't think it says something about that person, but about the mental state of humanity. We are an evil, destructive people at our bases. And we really don't need a reason to do this type of retribution either--hell, he could have been a black man trying to escape in America about 160 years ago. Or he could be someone that leaves the faith of Islam. Or...yeah, you get the point.

fucking pigs, should be pulled out of their houses and hung from street lamps as traitors to liberty. People will eventually get enough of this group of pigs with god complexes and a little violent retribution will wake some up.

The only civil war I could see this country having is the people vs law enforcement, it would take the government stepping in to keep the law enforcement from being slaughtered

We have a "post-privacy" movement in Germany (I'm sure this exists in other countries, too).
They stand for full identification in any interaction on the web.
here is a statement from the CCC which sums up their case pretty accurately.

I don't like it.
>> ^dag:

Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.
I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).
I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.
>> ^gorillaman:
There wouldn't be any reason to visit videosift without the comments.
The reason you see so much dumbfuckery online is people are able to be more open about who they are, and most people, at their core, are dumb fucks. So deal with it; it's better than living your life in a straightjacket of manners and convention.
I despise this movement to 'accountabilitise' the web. It comes from those who enjoy their social power too much and want to tighten their grip over the few remaining sanctuaries of free expression. I'm not talking about big evil governments; I'm talking about the control of people who are able to punish your dissent in ways like not inviting you to a wedding or blocking a promotion. If we're able to have open, honest interactions without fear then their power dissipates.
RL conversations should be more like web conversations; honesty is valuable and bullshit taboos and rituals are not.
If this puts me in the vocal minority, then I am glad.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm not against having outlets for pure unfettered self-expression, but much like a primal scream therapy session, it doesn't lend itself to real communication very well.>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.
I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).
I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.

Why do you think so many need an anonymous outlet for expression? Our culture is so repressive, on an individual scale, and that fear of retribution is real. I think the instinct that the internet is another world where we can reinvent ourselves is something to be encouraged rather than dismissed as a game or a fantasy. We're able to communicate now unburdened by circumstances or the disapproval of our peers. I'd say the less this reality interpenetrates with the lower world the better.
Personally there's almost no difference between my online and offline behaviour, except when I talk to my boss, but most people are more social than I am; they have more people pushing down on them and more to lose if they push back. So let them have their freedom, some might even have something worthwhile to say.

>> ^dag:

Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.
I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).
I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.


Why do you think so many need an anonymous outlet for expression? Our culture is so repressive, on an individual scale, and that fear of retribution is real. I think the instinct that the internet is another world where we can reinvent ourselves is something to be encouraged rather than dismissed as a game or a fantasy. We're able to communicate now unburdened by circumstances or the disapproval of our peers. I'd say the less this reality interpenetrates with the lower world the better.

Personally there's almost no difference between my online and offline behaviour, except when I talk to my boss, but most people are more social than I am; they have more people pushing down on them and more to lose if they push back. So let them have their freedom, some might even have something worthwhile to say.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.

I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).

I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.
>> ^gorillaman:

There wouldn't be any reason to visit videosift without the comments.
The reason you see so much dumbfuckery online is people are able to be more open about who they are, and most people, at their core, are dumb fucks. So deal with it; it's better than living your life in a straightjacket of manners and convention.
I despise this movement to 'accountabilitise' the web. It comes from those who enjoy their social power too much and want to tighten their grip over the few remaining sanctuaries of free expression. I'm not talking about big evil governments; I'm talking about the control of people who are able to punish your dissent in ways like not inviting you to a wedding or blocking a promotion. If we're able to have open, honest interactions without fear then their power dissipates.
RL conversations should be more like web conversations; honesty is valuable and bullshit taboos and rituals are not.
If this puts me in the vocal minority, then I am glad.

Oh don't hate them for their race.Hate them for their Player Class--Gangsta,where anyone who figures out how to string a dozen words together in front of a microphone feels entitled to Phat Lootz,or they blame "the Man" for their failures and consider random acts of violence and theft their Just Retribution we somehow owe them. I can appreciate Good Music of any sort,and acknowledge the Art and Craft of its creating auible sculpture with sound and voice. However,I will say I can do so without buying into a whole subculture that thinks wearing your pants half off is a fashion statement. I don't see the Enya Posse in Blue Wold on their faces and sporting designer kilts running around(although we should!). To quote a line from Animal House "Stoned Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life,son.",and that's what the subtext of the subculture amounts to. Flashy glamour is nice,but none of it matters in the face of Real Work and the instinctual Need to get it done. This seperates the Artist from the Mob,wanting to devote time away from a constant party and to physical and emotional labour to conjure something meaningful magical and new. Stepping back to admire the fruits of your handywork is a high no mass of shiney strangers can ever hope to beat. Someone in that Flashmob has orginizational skills...300 people is quite a turn out. Wouldn't it be Nice if they had much enthusiasm for something Positive,like a neighborhood watch? twittering about crimes happening to the police can help keep their neighborhoods safe,which are crawling with drugs and shoot outs."Yo Dawg! The Bruthah from that Bodega Shooting is here on Main Street!" Maybe if the "Hood wasn't such a Scarey Place,businesses would come in. And if they didn't feel it was their right to steal,they might find good jobs from the new businesses and earn a living instead of demanding one.

But one has to have Morals for that. I see none in that video. People who don't mind rampaging in front of a sea of security cameras.Can you convince such people to Play Nice at all,or past the point when doing the right thing inconveniences you?Do people sometimes need the threat of Guns even to keep civil? Suddenly snide remarks about Evolution suddenly make SENSE. But its SOcial Evolution at play here,and at fault. WE are Rome trying to convince a native of the Province they conquered to kindly not shit in the street. Sometimes you need clubs for that. But something tells me these people need their lives managed for them. Maybe wall up a ten block radius of a poor neighborhood,move all the families out nd let them play hip Hop as a live action video game where the bullets are real and cameras everywhere record the drama Live! The ultimate Reality TV Urban Experience fully packaged and ready for heavy merchendising! They can compete for resources and earn fabulous prizes,and hopefully only shoot themslves instead of the rest of us just trying to get on with life.


The Hip Hop experience...Unrated on Pay Per View.Visit our Website and Twitter your opinion on the utterly SICK way DJ Do Wah Ditty Diddy Dum Diddy Do had his ear shot off in the fight for the corner of 134th street and Avenue F! Log in with your SmartPhone and soak up all the sleeze with the HoodieCam!

It'll happen. You'll see. It's very Roman.

lurgee hates cats !

and America~!

and dingly dangly things !!

** nope, its the siftbot retribution. At least jebus loves you.

Don't discount your own insight so easily. What's your gut feeling? Do you think rehabilitation will work better if someone's relatively comfortable or if they're suffering more? At what level does a prisoner's discomfort become inhumane? Unproductive? What about the victims' and society's desire for retribution? Do you think a nice prison will be less of a deterrent to crime than a nasty one? What about when prisoners get out. Do you think it will affect their employability if they did their time in a nice place like this?

There's arguments and opinions to be had all over the place.

Or you could stare with what about the American system you don't think works, and if this would be a step in the right or the wrong direction.>> ^TheFreak:

I think my opinion on Norway's prison doesn't matter. I don't know a damn thing about rehabilitation or what works in their society.
Besides, I live in the USA and you'd be bullshiting yourself if you believed our system works.

What part of "sea lion" do these guys not understand? It's not a "sea pup", or "sea cutie", it's a sea LION!! If one of those idiots got bitten they probably would have come back with a rifle and slaughtered everything in sight as retribution. Idiots.

I agree -- SYG is a bad law. The very idea that you need to pass a law to "protect people who are defending themselves from a criminal attack from retribution lawsuits by the criminal or the criminal's relatives" seems misguided to me in the first place. SYG in particular seems almost designed to create exactly the kind of situation we have with Treyvon Martin.

I've got no problem with people having a right to self-defense, including even the use of lethal force, but like any other right the place where you ultimately get to assert that right is in court. You shouldn't be passing laws that require courts and the police to just take people's word for it. There should be an arrest, a criminal investigation, and if the evidence suggests it wasn't self-defense, then criminal charges and a trial.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?
This is the problem with the SYG laws. Quite often the only witness to the incident is the person who got killed, and the only person left to testify is the person who killed them. Then it is all "he said/they said", and so the judge doesn't have much choice except to throw the case out. SYG is supposed to protect people who are defending themselves from a criminal attack from retribution lawsuits by the criminal or the criminal's relatives. They are not supposed to be used to deliberately provoke a fight with someone you don't like in order to kill or injure them.

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?

This is the problem with the SYG laws. Quite often the only witness to the incident is the person who got killed, and the only person left to testify is the person who killed them. Then it is all "he said/they said", and so the judge doesn't have much choice except to throw the case out. SYG is supposed to protect people who are defending themselves from a criminal attack from retribution lawsuits by the criminal or the criminal's relatives. They are not supposed to be used to deliberately provoke a fight with someone you don't like in order to kill or injure them.

The fact that this law was in place is going to make it almost a lock that Zimmerman is not going to be prosecuted. If Zimmerman's defense team comes out and says, "Zimmerman had legitimate reason to believe that he was in danger of great bodily harm because Treyvon Martin jumped him, broke his nose, and was pounding his head on the sidewalk" then what can a prosecutor say? There are eyewitnesses that at least superficially confirm Zimmerman's story. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had no such fear, but in fact that he deliberately WANTED to instigate the fight. So far no such evidence exists. All we've got are conspiracy theories, rumors, innuendo, blog rage, and "ooo - he was related to a judge".

Constitutional or not? Forget the constitution for a moment.
Ask yourself if the Mafiosi during prohibition (or now for that matter) who exacted payments from business owners in neighborhoods in Chicago under promise of either protection or retribution for non-compliance were protected under any laws save those of corruption, graft, extortion, and thuggery.

No difference here simply an emperor in new clothes. Rather than allowing such insanity to continue why don't we all pull our collective heads from our asses and wake up to the crime being perpetrated in just about every piece of legislation set forth from now on?

Let's suggest a solution to the health problem in the United States: Train the next two generations of TV-Addicted robots to stop putting poison in their bodies and place serious limitations on adverts for crap food. Dismember the Agri-lobby crowd inside the beltway. Dismantle Monsanto and other poisonous corporations dead-set on CREATING the health problems of the U.S. , etc. Ban advertising of a battery of staple products, fast-foods, etc.

Charge MORE money for crap food instead of making deep-fried roadkill from MC D's, Pizza Hut, etc. dirt, fucking cheap. Make the Mayo clinic's power foods list the most affordable stuff on the planet.

Reprogramming of dysfunctional habits is what is needed. Not some crap president's evil plan to keep the statusquo. He's a tool, his plan is bound to add to his legacy of shit. Fuck, the man is FROM the most corrupt city in the country!?? Can't those with an IQ over 110 get the gist?