Aaaahahahaha! Nice projection....and another failing grade in English. Want to compare transcripts? I know we can only go to 8th grade before yours ends....too bad, I was still getting all "A"s with maybe one "B" in PE then. I would suggest we compare SAT scores, but you indicated you didn't get that far.

I did not catch your cranial rectosis, thanks for the concern, out of character though it may be.

We all know that if you could back up your nonsense with anything that resembles a fact or citation, you would. You never can, and when you try you invariably either turn out to have totally misread what you cite, you cite propaganda sites rated at 5 Pinocchios, or you link to spoof sites based in Columbia that try to install viruses.

We all also know you only make these public insults to try to feel like a big boy, in private you were usually far more reasonable, civil, sometimes even flattering, and privately you could admit you were wrong, not in public though, there you're an uncivil moron spouting insane conspiracy theories and utter nonsense then hiding when challenged, or at best replying with factless, pointless, preschool level snark, and since you said you support lying in any circumstance if it helps your argument or cause, including under oath in the highest court in the land by the top government official, I won't speak to you in private. This made you a constant and consistent unapologetic liar that can never back up their nonsense because there is no corroboration or verification possible for blatant lies, so instead you answer with dumb insults.

At least I offer a fact based (often with citations) argument when I insult your lack of intelligence, education, knowledge, logic, honesty, and civility. You cannot say the same, because you never have a fact based argument to offer, and consequently you are totally incapable of insulting me. D'oh!

So sorry I use fact and citations to disprove your insane infantile nonsense constantly, and don't slink away into the shadows when challenged because my positions are reasoned and considered, and can be logically and factually corroborated, not just insulting preschool nonsense based on wishful thinking like you spout.

So I was correct, you cannot back up your own statements with anything. Just more maga tears and tantrums.

Are all Trumpsters now totally incapable of explaining their grade school snark, or is it just you and your sockpuppets?

Well, then your position changed 180 degrees from your original statement....so why the snark?
Or is "staggering" not "excessive" in your mind?

Dogboy49 said-
"American wealth inequality is staggering. "

???? Stated as if that is a bad thing.......

Very analogous to Westboro Baptist "church" stooges. They (ab)use their constitutionally protected rights to free speech to say the most offensive and provocative crap that they can come up with, specifically with the intention to incite a (violent) reaction against them. Why? Because pretty much the entire Phelps family are lawyers, and they know that they can generally win any assault case that they can provoke people into. All that hate they spew boils down to a stupid, petty moneymaking scam.

Is the Seattle Nazi that devious and cunning? I doubt it. Probably just a crazy / fucked up guy, as Maher said. That doesn't excuse his fuckwittery, but it does reinforce Maher's argument that punching the guy is NOT the best response.

Morello is awesome, with RATM and Audioslave, and now Prophets of Rage, etc. But he's dead wrong on this issue, and comes across as a bit of an "internet tough guy". Outside of just ignoring them, I kinda think the only way to one-up these people is to know the law, what constitutes assault etc., and essentially beat them at their own game (ie. provoke them into doing something to you). On the other hand, there's something to be said for using using passive-aggressive snark to mock / humiliate them in a nonviolent way, ala the Foo Fighters:

Funny, Christians all dismiss thousands of years of multiple human cultures...(like any that deny or dispute the Christ story), but complain to no end if theirs is disputed or discarded in any way.

You've got to be kidding. The times when the most disgusting experiments were done is the exact same time when religious zealots inserted their "christian" religion into our government. (But certainly not it's teachings)

EDIT: Those cards only look like bricks from one narrow viewpoint. From any other view point it's undeniable that they are just paper thin and can't stand on their own. It's not about not giving them a second thought...it's that no matter how much you examine them they only appear solid from one specific position.

That was a lot of backhanded compliments and snark for someone pretending a nerve wasn't struck.

As usual, you have it all wrong.
The left wanted Comey fired for making false statements designed both in tenor and timing to harm Clinton's chances.
They are up in arms because it's blatantly obvious that Trump didn't fire him for his statements last June or July, they thought him their hero in November and said so clearly right up until yesterday when he moved to expand the investigation into Trump's campaign. If he was going to be fired for his actions last summer, that would have happened in January, not yesterday.
Trump IS under investigation. First, the only evidence he isn't under investigation is Trump's unsolicited self serving claim that he said that, second, do you think the investigator tells the target they're being investigated? Not unless they are colluding, like the house committee did.

The FBI and house committee both said there is clear, undeniable evidence, but it's classified so far. Trump could fix that today, but he won't, he's too busy having closed door meetings with the very Russian diplomats he's accused of colluding with. (Edit:and they just released in house photos of the meeting, no press was allowed, showing smiling and laughing Trump and the diplomats arm in arm clearly having a great time, a pretty stark contrast to his meetings with allied presidents and diplomats that were often decidedly unfriendly and standoffish) That's not snark, it's fact.

If the investigations were a witch hunt, Trump would want them publicly investigated thoroughly so the evidence would prove it....not stymie them at every opportunity and repeatedly fire the investigators while clearly being caught lying about the investigation and why he fired them all when he did.

You did good on that joke and on its explanation. I got it just fine without the commentary though.

I left your whole commentary here, because I make it a practice to delete all comments from my wall. Your essay needs to be saved for posterity.

So here is a quirk of Videosift.

If you are ignoring someone, and they make a comment on one of your videos, you will never get another email saying that comments have been made.

I had no idea of the implosion on that comment stream. Dear god in heaven.

What is really sad is I only wanted a temp ban. I honestly didn't know of @gorillaman's propensities. I am all for second, third and fourth chances -- even though some people have left the Sift in the past because the worst abusers were allowed back. I understood their pain, but I'm still all for more chances. If you love something enough, maybe you will change your behavior. I certainly don't change immediately. I will accord others the opportunity to learn over time.

So no edit help, huh? I think I'll use this:

As "Homeland Security" says, if you see something, SAY something. (Because here is the truth: As Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel wrote, "Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.")

Much cleaner. Don't need the snark bit. Quote marks. Gotta love 'em. (Quote marks, not parentheses, to denote snark. I'm getting old.)

I didn't address your tendency to tread lightly with me in my first response. I figured it was made up of three things:

1. My early days on the Sift, I had really thin skin. I was easily hurt and upset. One of the biggest gifts to me in my life was learning on the Sift to be clearer and stronger in my communications. And to walk away from the abusers. And to use the ignore button. I figured that my early reactions were in your brain pan still.

2. That tone of voice thing. It is real. What is a simple, clear declarative sentence in my head can be read as a whine-fest by others.

3. I think it is great that you write carefully when you write to me. Keep it up! It's called caring about the person you are talking to. I have zero problem with that. In fact, I see it as a Great Good. (Because if you aren't, and I lay my own internal tone of voice onto your words in a way that doesn't match the words in your head, you will be hearing from me. And I am just as verbose as you, my friend! A punishment worse than death!)

And yes. We are people who hang in there. It is a blessing and a curse.
Well, only a curse to those who roll their eyes and snort "good grief, just shut up!" I'm cool with it.

Thanks for hanging in with me. And I am truly sorry about gorillaman. He did it to himself, though. He did have other choices.

In solidarity, I say to you -- Fuck Homeland Security and ginned up xenophobia and racism.

(A poet? Do you write epic odes? Surely not haikus!)

Okay

I just took a long walk to have lunch. As I walked, I noodled and noodled on my Homeland comment (if it isn't obvious by now, I use that comment all the time.) How to give it context so as to not give the wrong impression? How to keep it short, given how complicated the context is?

Finally realized the power of the snark. Parentheses. Those communicate quickly.

Still needed more. Has to be short.

I sat to eat my lunch, and opened the book of essays I was reading. (I always read while eating if alone.) And there it was.

So. Would you be interested in being my editor for this project? Help me hone it? Get it succinct? (If you are interested, I have a great story about the Broadway musical Guys and Dolls struggles to be succinct. Came to mind when I stumbled on the idea of parentheses.)

Okay. Here goes. Let me know if you would like to help me get it right:

As "Homeland Security" says, if you see something, SAY something. (Meant to be read snarkily. Because here is the truth: As Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said: "Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.")


It is still long. I'll have to copy and paste a long time before I remember it. But it provides context and I hope it communicates that you cannot confuse me with a Brownshirt.

And here we are, just about 2017, and 'freethinkers' are still convincing themselves that sending 100 million tons of carbon up into the sky every day does nothing to the air, water and soil carbon sinks. And to suggest it does and also own a car or fly in a plane? You're a degenerate hypocrite.

Very glad you pointed this out, as the international cabal of hundreds of thousands of researchers (people who literally earn their livings by questioning established norms and developing new ideas and solutions, and are therefor pretty hard to keep toeing the line in this cabal) will certainly be angry at Neil deGrasse Tyson for owning that nice car, and flying in airplanes, and no doubt eating burgers while wearing clothes made in China. We, the cabal, definitely need to chat with Neil, as that luxory sedan only get 19 city/29 highway,... with such hypocritical actions, he may as well be handing out pamphlets telling people about our secret anthropogenic global warming cabal, and its goals to, um, regulate the human contributions to the warming of our one habitable planet.

Sorry I lost the snark there at the end because I forget what reason the conspiracy theorists give for 'AGW shills'... is it somethng to do with a moral argument against Exxon and other energy mega companies? Again, sorry, would appreciate help with that part.

Answer-Yes, clearly self defense.

Nice snark, clearly directed at me, in your description @Buttle.

Mixon is not a disabled person or someone not used to violence, so it would clearly be harder to make a point that he feared for his life, but also clearly he should have feared for his safety, he was hit twice by a nutjob that was emboldened by idiots that think you can't hit a woman in the face...they have faces, don't they?

Had he gone to trial with the video, he probably wouldn't have been convicted of a thing, at worst it might be argued that it was mutual combat, even though it was clearly self defense, he even let her get away with the first physical attack and only (properly) retaliated after the second.
The incident was allegedly started by Molitor and her boyfriend who were loudly hurling racial slurs at Mixon, then attacked him physically when he tried to walk away....twice.

I think it's awful he took the plea, he should have stood up for himself, but I think the video proof wasn't made available to him so it was her word against his, and she claimed he was the sole aggressor. Sadly, because of people like the video poster who seem to believe that a woman attacker can't be defended against under any circumstances, he saw the writing on the wall that no matter how justified his actions were, he would likely be made to pay for them.

That woman shouldn't get a dime though, she clearly started the fight. Start a fight like a man with a man, you'll get punched like a man. That's called equality.

Thank you for not tagging this as parody, because it's not. The exact same argument can be heard in churches and republican meetings, with only slightly less snark.

How dare those evil servicemen abuse our God given constitution against our attempts at militaristic proselytizing.

I find it disgusting that an organization like the military religious freedom foundation has anything to do. That's a massive failure of leadership that should be just cause to force a few generals to retire.

Well, I'll try to explain then.
I have a tendency to not take the word of someone that obviously has a pre-conceived opinion. The 'evidence' you provided was not ample...the written parts were nothing but commentary (and one was just commentary about Westborough Church) The videos were preceded by the explanation by the creator that they were simply nothing but re-edited videos made to say what he wanted, not reality. There's absolutely no reason to give such videos a look at all, so after the first one I didn't.
I refuse to acknowledge them because I found them lacking in actual EVIDENCE and full of nothing but comment and snark, and in the case of the videos, just admitted lies. I asked for evidence of her actions, not evidence that other people dislike her.
I tried watching that video last week, didn't like it, didn't finish it.
As I said repeatedly, I'm open to EVIDENCE, just not pure propaganda presented as evidence. That's all you've linked so far, propaganda. I have not seen a whit of EVIDENCE about her actions/statements involving sex workers from you yet.
If you care to provide some real evidence of her actions, not someone bitching about her, not someone taking 2 words she said and making a 10 minute video about what THEY say she meant. How about a single interview where SHE said something derogatory about sex workers. How about a single article where she's QUOTED saying something derogatory about sex workers...and as I've said I don't think the phrase "prostituted women" cuts it, that can be 100% non-derogatory if said in a non-derogatory way...so provide EVIDENCE, or give up trying to make me have an opinion about her...I really don't care a bit about her, and don't think she's a worthy spokesperson for anything...isn't that good enough for you? Does every thing she does have to be seen by everyone in a bad light? I don't see why.

It can remain adult, the first 6 comments (including ant's, ending with bareboards') were adult, then it quickly devolved into grade school faulty reasoning, lack of comprehension, blatant racism, and derision by someone well known for that type of post.
Conversations will never remain 'adult' when people start their posts with silly blanket derision like "Ugh, everyone in this thread is acting like an asshat." That's not an adult thing to say, and adds nothing to any discussion. Also, you include ant in that (he had posted in the thread by then) for adding it to the 'talk' channel. WHAT?!

To answer your questions,
@Babymech made a quite valid point with a clear example of why Anita doesn't owe anyone anything, and a second post explaining that even more clearly (the second with some snark, because of the insulting comment(er) it was replying to).
You just started by insulting everyone...posters, speaker, Anita, "everyone in this thread"... and made huge leaps to assume she hates and belittles sex workers (who are prostitutes if they sell sex for money, BTW).
Then you go on to apparently claim rape, or people caring/not caring about rape, or perhaps people caring/not caring about other people caring/not caring about rape is a first world problem?

Trancecoach (I had to "show it anyway", he's on ignore for obvious reasons) had absolutely no valid point to make, only a complete misread of babymech and a racist insulting rant making insanely wrong claims and conflations.

@ChaosEngine (and I) explained why she disabled comments on youtube. It was not to block valid criticism, or they would never have been open in the first place. It was because of daily rape and death threats and good advice from friends, cops, and youtube.

Your points are not valid IMO. Particularly your point about her turning off comments, I find that point completely without merit for reasons already delineated.

I'm not interested enough in her to investigate her, and see no need. I'm not a fan. That said, when people make silly statements about her (like "youtubers - commenters & personalities alike - started calling her on her bullshit. In response, she disabled the comments on all of her videos.") when I know that's not correct, I will correct you.
Gamergate (EDIT: for a vast majority of people) WAS about "an ACTUAL very serious set of issues.
Online Harassment. Slut shaming. The depiction & plight of genders in pop culture. etc. " because of the harassing, slut shaming, threatening comments it generated. That's why people know about it, not because of it's original message. Juxtapose that with the repeated serious threats of brutal home invasion & sexual assault...Then ask yourself if the nitpicky personal opinion you've already expressed maintains the situation & context. Otherwise you end up expressing terrible non-sequitur mindless thoughts like Trancecoach.

in effect - "regardless of her peer's brutal rape.. she has no right to expect someone you have labeled an outspoken proponent of women's rights (in gaming).. to respond to her.. or call attention to what you (not her) are calling the most disparaged & vulnerable/easily victimized members of society, female sex workers"...yes, absolutely. Sarkeesian is not an anti-rape advocate, she's a 'women in gaming' advocate, and has no obligation to take up another cause and drop her cause. It's disturbing you don't se the difference, and I think it's intentional.

What I mock are the institutionalized versions of spirituality...organized religions. They all have stories/mythos that, when looked at from outside, are simply silly and ridiculous...and I often oblige by ridiculing them. They are also all quite dangerous, easily abused and, IMO, a net drain on society/humanity. I did not ONLY mock religion though, there were many valid points expressed, but with too much snark for your taste.
That said, I will apologize for being rude, even though it was all in jest. While I have no respect for the ideas/stories I discussed, I was not trying to upset you. When you proselytize here, posting walls of scripture, it often gets my hackles up right away and I get snarky. Think of it as a balanced equation...when you add religious positive, it should be balanced with religious negative...religious respect/religious disrespect. I would think you would expect that reaction from many regular sifters by now. But wouldn't you say that's just how god made us? ;-)
Don't take it personally.
EDIT:...and keep in mind, if you're really secure about something, you can always joke about it.