Post a video, present me a POV!

Fox Analyst calls President Obama a pussy

Good job, Fox analyst, for being both incredibly disrespectful and a sexist prick, at the same time! (Also, you're wrong. HTH, HAND.)

I just assume this will be something people will argue about.

Michael Moore: Where To Invade Next | official teaser trailer

farley3k wrote:

Fox Analyst calls President Obama a pussy

Fox News totally stepped up and sent a message that such language is completely inappropriate.

They suspended the above commentator (and another one who said Obama didn't give a sh*t about terrorism) for two whole weeks.

farley3k wrote:

I just assume this will be something people will argue about.

Michael Moore: Where To Invade Next | official teaser trailer

To be honest, I've never been a Michael Moore fan. I dislike his propagandist tactics and hypocrisy (the guy is a mutlimillionaire who owns 9 homes and mansions!)

Why shouldn't he enjoy the fruits of his success? He is fighting the good fight.

SallyNasty wrote:

Why shouldn't he enjoy the fruits of his success? He is fighting the good fight.

Whatever problems I have with Michael Moore as an individual, he's not a hypocrite just because he's rich. Systemic problems require systemic solutions. An individual agitating for systemic change is all we should ask for. I think people who know more than me would call it a Nash Equilibrium problem? I don't blame anyone for staying rich until they can solve the systemic problem on a systemic level.

Michael Moore isn't against being rich. He's against protecting wealth with tax laws that benefit the rich at expense of the poor.

And he thinks it's particularly obnoxious that rich conservatives have gamed the system so well that blue collar conservatives continue to vote admgainst their own interests because they buy into the fantasy that they will be rich someday. They selfishly vote to protect the wealthy, all the while those policies are designed to prevent them from ever moving up in class.

Well, that's not the image I got of him. He has very explicitly come out as an anti-capitalist and demonized all rich people. He tries to portray himself as a spokesman for the working class and an "average joe" while at the same time boasting about his fortune and being part of the "1%" he speaks against. He made his fortune thourgh the same system he criticizes.

When it comes to his work, it is filled with platitudes and cherry-picking presented in a creative way, with an appeal to emotion. Essentially, propaganda.

Integrity wrote:

He made his fortune thourgh the same system he criticizes.

He didn't make his money through shady Wall Street investments or by screwing over workers.

He made his money by writing books, making documentaries, and producing TV shows.

And the sole source to the "boasting" claim comes from a single interview conducted by a weekly indie newspaper in Humboldt County, CA in 2002 where he said that he was a millionaire because millions of people liked and supported him.

Criticizing Moore for not being poor falls a bit too close to the claims that Operation Wall Street protesters shouldn't be taken seriously because they had iPhones and Al Gore can't be trusted about global warming because he flies in planes and once lived in an energy inefficient 100 year-old house (which is now Gold LEED certified).

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/vvdpwnV.jpg)

Ralph Peters? The author? He's gone around the bend, too?

NSFW IS recruitment video.

Just goes to show how sophisticated propaganda machine they have. I've read a few issues of their magazine too, and it's of similar quiality, very impressive. The nasheed was genuinely good, too (IS honestly makes some great music, their "national anthem" is better than that of 80% of world's countries imo). These guys are not all mere goathorders, they have many well-educated people in their ranks.

Do I have to click on the link, or does my mere presence in this thread put me on the list?

Rezzy wrote:

Do I have to click on the link, or does my mere presence in this thread put me on the list?

Darn my plan has been uncovered.

Rezzy wrote:

Do I have to click on the link, or does my mere presence in this thread put me on the list?

That was the first thing I thought of too.

The second thing I thought was "wow this is an incredibly polished video."

Truth and Power - Official Pivot Trailer - Investigative Documentary Series

I guess this could lead to arguments

12 Days of Evolution.

This is #2 but after the video you can click on any of the other days.

Not sure why that is controversial at all. Very succinct, though, I need to remember that metaphor.

I forget which thread was talking about this recently...

Yes, when you listen to the lyrics it is a horrible song.

(wasn't sure whetehr to post this on the entertaining videos thread or P&C but here it is)

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s...

did a google search on "are women worse at driving" and this is the first article that popped up.

FiveIron wrote:

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s...

did a google search on "are women worse at driving" and this is the first article that popped up.

So do we just write it off as sexist or is the study well done? I am not a scientist so I often can't tell

But this

Researchers at the University of Michigan analyzed 6.5 million car crashes in the U.S. between 1998 and 2007. Female drivers were found to be involved in 68.1 percent of all crashes, according to The Daily Mail.

The results are especially surprising given that men were found to drive 60 percent of the time, while women only 40 percent. In other words, women got in more accidents despite driving less than the opposite sex.

Seems like it isn't them picking questions, or putting participants in situations so much as looking at what actually has happened.

The results are especially surprising given that men were found to drive 60 percent of the time, while women only 40 percent. In other words, women got in more accidents despite driving less than the opposite sex.

Lead researcher Dr. Michael Sivak said they expected to find that male-to-male crashes would account for 36.2 percent of accidents, female-to-female would make up 15.8 percent and male-to-female would make up 48 percent of collisions.

Instead, analysis showed female-to-female accidents made up 20.5 percent of all crashes, much higher than expected. Male-to-male crashes were lower than expected, at 31.9 percent, while male-to-female crashes were close to their predictions at 47.6 percent.

Hmm. I realize I am Asian and thus bad at math but something up there doesn't quite smell right.

If men do 60% of driving and women do 40% of it, why would they expect male-to-male crashes to be 36.2%?

Stay with me here. If half of the crashes (47.6%) were male-to-female. The remainder should fall to a statistical average of around 30% and 20%, right? Male-to-male crashes were 31.9% and female-to-female were 20.5%.

Am I missing something important?

Here's the university PR piece on the study, with pdf.

The math is given in the study. For example, they estimated the likelihood of a male-male-crash by taking the percentage of distance driven by males, times the same value (one man probability times one man probability), so that's ((0.602 x 0.602) x 100) = 36.2%. (The attribution seems to be that if you take 100% of the crashes, then 36.2% of them should be male-male if the only factor is the sex of the driver. Deviating from that shows other influences.)

What's interesting is that the study is from 2011 and the conclusions are pretty unsurprising. If you drive less, you are more likely to get into accidents, is one. Another is that there are social expectations of actions based on stereotypes of drivers based on their sex, and of course when you make split-second decisions based on stereotypes, you raise your chance of being wrong. Lastly, there was some speculation that women's height contributed to some types of accidents.

I think hyping this as "women are worse drivers" misses the point of the study pretty badly.

My assumption is that the more time one spends driving, the better they are at reading situations and avoiding crashes. While women drive less overall, that is also less time honing skills.

I wold consider looking at comparisons of women and men that drive the same number of hours each week.

I suspect that there are multiple factors involved and that men have a laundry list of gender associated factors that detract from good driving as well (e.g.: aggression, impulsiveness....).

In any event, I can't wait for computer driven cars. Humans absolutely suck at it.