Can't wait to see the Daenerys in the house of the Undying next week.

To quote Yoda's undying wisdom.

Fear creates, anger, Anger creates hate, Hate creates Suffering!

Are you telling me you've never killed a spider out of fear? Or Anger? or Hate? If you say no your lying to yourself and everyone else.

For the record I'm Arachnophobic myself so I understand how the process works.
I'm also not gay but I believe anyone and everyone has the free will to be who and what they want period.

>> ^shang:

definitely wasn't "homophobic" <- the new political correct term
phobic/phobia is a fear of, such as I have arachnophobia, but even though I am anti-gay, I do not have homophobia.
political correctness wants to redefine words, such as trying to redefine phobia to also mean hate.
again I am arachnophobic but I do not hate spiders, I fear them.

"political correct movement should die in a fucking fire" - George Carlin

When I watch Cops and I see them chase suspects I am always surprised that this doesnt happen more often. They just leave their cars wide open with all that gear and I would assume shotguns etc.

Kudos for the shot at the end of the dude in his undies. Knowing that this whole episode took place in a pair of jockies makes it so much better.

In the undying words of Homer Simpson:

Boooooring!

It cracks me up that the idea of "bloat" gets people's undies in an uproar.

There is so much crap here on the Sift. An extra vid here or there doesn't matter.

Have you seen shinyblurry's pqueue? 26 videos with a cumulative vote count of -1*.

I would return this, but I have a sneaking suspicion it is catching more upvotes here. Which pleases me -- I loved these vids.



*I didn't actually add them up. It amuses me to think of a negative total.

On another note if all the baristas only wore a smock and undies starbucks would probably see a huge spike in business. Plus they could lower the quality of their products and nobody would notice cause everyone would be too busy staring at the TnA or CnA.

>> ^aurens:

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:

1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."
If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)

2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."
Too absurd to even address.

3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."
You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.

4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."
Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.



Of course the post is highly speculative: It says that RP gets elected. I thought this would be obvious.

1. The question would be: What would happen if Antitrust-laws exist no more at all, not: Are Anti-trust laws at the moment used fairly?


2. Either you adress it or you don't. It is not absurd. Tell me why it would be.


3. Again, the inferred question is not: Does it work now?; the question at hand is: What would happen if the farm subsidies in a first-world-country would fall away? Would farming become too unprofittable and only be used for subsistence; importing cheaper food from outside the US? Or would it become profittable again by increasing the price of food immensely, cutting heavily into the income of poorer people?


4. That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance. Give me a serious unbiased text on this, and I'll read it. I really will. But to dismiss at least 40% of the uninsured right out of hand is highly irresponisble and assholish.

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:


1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."

If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)


2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."

Too absurd to even address.


3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."

You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.


4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."

Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

This reminded me of the time I saw a dude at a laundromat washing out the racing stripes in his undies in the sink.
Now that moment is even more sad...still just as gross though.

Look, nobody really thinks Weiner has to lose his job over this.

Republicans see this as an opportunity to quash an opposing voice and Democrats feel compelled to feign outrage to appear non-partisan. It's the same ends-justify-the-means tribal bullshit that ruins everything in politics.

I'm not particularly a fan of Weiner (or weiner, for that matter), but there's just no reason he should lose his job over this. He didn't break any laws; he didn't violate any rules of the position. I could plaster my junk on a billboard and I wouldn't lose my job, so why should he?

If his constituents feel this is such a problem then he won't be reelected. All the idiots complaining that this is such a distraction; it wouldn't be if you'd shut up and get back to work. Or are we to believe that you're kept up at night thinking about Weiner's bulging undies?

I'm sorry, but if you're dumb enough to try and oogle ladies under the steps, or take videos of them at a court house, you deserve to be caught.

Honestly.

If you're not working, there's a 90% chance you're there for something you fucked up with, do you really think people in that situation are going to try and make matters worse by standing under the steps trying to catch a glimpse of your undies?

Or is the much more likely scenario going to be that they're worried and not focused on your snatch.

I'm more inclined to go with the latter.

and lastly.. How the fuck did this woman get to become a judge? Judges undergo training to make them impartial and unbiased, and one of the first things she lets slip is insanely sexist.

Come on guys, somebody must have a category or two for me!

Burlap undies here -- I am deeply curious as to what would be chosen.

@rottenseed? Come label me, baby!

Although if anyone chooses Fragile Femme, they just haven't been paying attention.

I was deliberately vague in my Sift Talk opening, because I didn't want to get into an argument about specifics. I wanted to convey an idea, not argue back and forth. (By the way, my actual questions were never answered, not that I really expected them to be.)

There has been a lot of speculation on what pushed me over the edge into starting a Sift Talk, after 5 years of reading comments here. I know the culture. I have grown calloused, burlapped undie'd up, to quote dag. I even, after some initial horror, have grown to understand the nature of "sexist" comments, a little bit. They don't bother me as much as they used to. I see them, I sigh, I move on, sometimes I even enjoy them. So why now? What happened that pushed me over the edge?

I couldn't have answered coherently a couple of days ago. I think I can now.

It actually started two months ago. @Morganth posted a great video, part of a series.

http://videosift.com/video/Killing-Us-Softly-vertising-s-Image-of-Women

There were some great, thoughtful responses to this video. There were also some increasingly ugly, misogynist, hateful, ignorant comments. Each new ugly comment spawned another. I kept hoping it would drop into the archives, but instead, it sifted to the Top 15, with over 100 votes -- clearly not because of the content of the video, but because of the feeding frenzy of ugly comments, specifically targeted towards women. That video's comment thread could be used as a case study of unconscious -- and perhaps conscious -- male anger and hatred towards women. It could also be used to show the deep ignorance of men about what it means to be a woman. (Before you jump on me, believe me I know that most women are ignorant of the pressures put on men. But this isn't a contest about who has been hurt worst by cultural stereotypes and expectations, who is the bigger victim. I have been saying since 1974 that men need to fight against their oppression just as women had begun to.)

I also thought -- man, the Sift is being to change, who are all these people, this isn't the Sift I know and love. This is qualitatively different than the normal razzing that goes on here.

I didn't say anything. I just gritted my teeth and waited for it to go away. It eventually did.

Then a couple of days ago, eric -- who is one of my favorite people on the Sift, kind, observant, generous, a true feminist/humanist -- posted a link to what would become the C Punch vid in the sift lounge and said -- hey, somebody post this, this cracks me up. (He does that all the time -- shares links to vids. I have gotten several Top 15 vids and I think even one #1 -- eric is generous, remember?)

I watched it. I saw -- as I have said elsewhere -- what everyone else saw -- a woman trying to fit into an existing clique, wanting to belong, who allowed herself to be hit in accordance with the "rules" of the group. I have opinions about the idiocy of a pack of males and what their senses of humor devolve to, but I didn't think she was any more pressured than any man would have felt in the same group.

I also knew -- suspected -- feared -- that the troll crowd that showed up for the advertising vid would come out in force. That something really ugly would be unleashed. I didn't think that men who clearly have a problem with women (the new crowd from the advertising vid) would understand what was happening in the vid. That all they would see was a woman being hit in the genitals, and the feeding frenzy would begin.

I tried to stop the posting of the vid. Out of fear of what might happen.

And then it didn't. Because spoco2 spoke up quickly, became the human sacrifice, and the conversation got heated, intricate and wordy. It didn't devolve -- well, it devolved, but it devolved as most heated discussions do here. I was fine with that.

What I wasn't fine with, was the title. The title did not match the video. The title reflected (sorry gwiz, I know the word has different connotations in Denmark) my worst misogynist nightmare. I am not going to explain the nuances of why that is so -- I tried in the sift lounge after the fact, and I realized that if you aren't a woman, it is too complicated to communicate in this medium.

But the description of the vid was worse -- REALLY had nothing to do with the video, only had to do with the systemic, cultural violence towards women (sorry, gwiz, I know for you it was a joke. It wasn't for me.)

There are also generational differences, and experience differences, and not every woman would react the same way I did. So I didn't take any positive action to fix my distress -- it isn't up to me to enforce my views onto others.

But then it got promoted. By eric, who I adore, who I knew liked the vid (because it showed a woman acting as stupid as a man, which is funny theoretically). To the front page. With THAT title. And then it got promoted again, by someone who linked to a vid that was clearly domestic violence and was exactly the kind of comment that I feared beforehand (sorry Lasurus, I have no idea of you personally, but guy, please know -- that was Not. Cool.)

Now I am really beginning to feel uncomfortable. Promoted to the front page. Having to look at that title every time I came to the Sift (which is too much, but that is my particular brand of OCD.) But still I don't do anything, because hey, it is just my opinion. I'll wait for it to slide down into the archives.

But it couldn't be left to die away. A vid that reduced a woman to her naked torso in the thumbnail was promoted twice and qualitied. To the front page. Where I can't avoid it. It felt like there was an (unconscious) assault against women would never end, and that what I felt during the advertising comment stream was now spilling out onto the front page of the Sift. And yes, I know it was all meant as a joke, but it was increasingly not funny, it was increasingly uncomfortable to be a woman here.

Someone helped me find a solution to that problem -- I sent the vid to discuss and asked that the thumbnail be changed. Having a blatant bewb shot stuck at the top of the page wasn't good for the Sift, with its millions of visitors. That was clear to me and I knew that changing the thumbnail was a reasonable action, not just my personal queasiness.

But that is when I broke. When I got pushed over the edge. The advertising video making Top 15 with its horrendous comment stream, C Punch as the (inaccurate) title on a promoted vid, and then the trolling of pushing a thumbnail to the front page -- it was a combination of events that proved too much for me.

I needed to speak up. I did not want to stay silent anymore. I needed to break the polite silence.

But even then -- all I said was I didn't like it. And that I don't understand this need to be provoking and shocking -- one of my first interactions with blankfist was to send him a PM, asking him to explain to me what the thrill of trolling is. (He never answered me. But it was an honest question.)

You would have thought that I took an axe to the genitals of every man on the sift. For saying I didn't like it.

I find that amusing in the extreme. Netrunner figured it out. There is the most vicious trolling and personal attacks on the Sift ALL THE TIME. But a reasonable person speaks up and says "I don't like that?" WTF!

Look at the number of comments here. Just who are the sensitive, thin-skinned ones? And if you have the courage to ask yourself -- just how much of your anger is rooted in the cultural pressures you have been subjected to your whole life? (That is a college course or five years of therapy -- I'm not going to unpack that sentence for you.)

Women have been told to shut up and be nice for centuries. I have stayed silent for years here (not perfectly silent, I'm sure you can find examples proving that statement wrong -- but believe me, I have been silent far far far FAR more than I have said things.)

And now I spoke up. Said my piece. Learned some things about myself, and how I might use different tactics in the future to deal with things that disturb me, met some really cool new folks, and I have fallen in love with the Sift all over again.

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

I think it's a big reason why people leave the Sift. Especially females. The ones who stay are tough as burlap undies. (No offense ladies - I love you - go back to piercing your uvulas)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Being someones brother isn't a legal status first, nor is marriage. How the law deals with peoples relationships will, of course, be defined someway. The problem is, because the law has decided to be first in relationships instead of second, the law is denying contacts between people. A man and 20 women decide to entire into a relationship of sorts. The government will not allow this contact because it has decided to play the moral authority on enforcing certain contracts.
I mostly agree with what you are saying, don't get me wrong. I, too, would like to see "marriage" as just an agreement between people recognized by the state...but it isn't such. Right now, the state defines what marriage can be, and who can and can't enter into that relationship instead of people making that choice for themselves. The point is, gay people cannot enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals, the law is denied to them. Gay people can, indeed, enjoy each other as per anyone can...but can't see their loved on in certain hospitals because they, in fact, are not equal under the law.
So marriage is kind of both, in a sense, still private and public. Someone can SAY they are married, they just might not get all the protections afforded other people because the state does regulate it. My problem is that the STATE has defined the rules as to what marriage can and will be, not individuals. The state will not recognize the love I share with my mouse pad. The state on such matters has to have the last word, of course, my problem is they also have the first word.
(btw, I am confused by the statement not personal AND no private, certainly it has to be one, or both...and certainly, it has to be one first.)


I think we both have the same basic idea about how this should ultimately be handled. But since the devil is in the detail, I'll still nitpick a bit. I still say that the state needs to have some control over how they define marriage, and that it can't be a private matter because of the benefits afforded to married couples. I do think the government should recognize "non-standard" family units, and should allow you to assign visitation rights / tax benefits / property sharing / etc. as you see fit for the most part.

However, there are limits. Marrying your mousepad, for example, is right out. Even if you have an undying love for your mousepad, it can't consent (being inanimate), so that's a problem right there. A mousepad doesn't pay taxes, so there's no reason to give it tax benefits. And if you divorce it later on, does it get half of your possessions? Who would represent it in divorce court? No, I would say someone marrying their mousepad is trying to game the system by getting married tax benefits while still single.

You seem to imply that the state shouldn't recognize the marriage between yourself and your mousepad, but that they shouldn't define what marraige is... I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making.

(You are correct regarding the personal / private thing -- I misspoke. It is personal, but isn't private.)