Title, description and video hardly tell the real story.

"But according to the U.S. Marshals Service, there was a bit more to Aker’s story that wasn’t told on air.

According to the feds Aker had a warrant for his arrest and that he had been dodging them for some time.

The U.S. Marshals Service noted Tuesday that they have been given the responsibility for service of civil processes as directed by the federal court system. These civil processes can include summons for individuals to appear in court to address delinquent federal student loans.

"Since November 2012, U.S. Marshals had made several attempts to serve a show cause order to Paul Aker to appear in federal court, including searching at numerous known addresses. Marshals spoke with Aker by phone and requested he appear in court, but Aker refused. A federal judge then issued a warrant for Aker's arrest for failing to appear at a Dec. 14, 2012, hearing," the agency said in a statement Tuesday.

"It is the responsibility of the U.S. Marshals to serve civil processes at direction of the federal courts. These civil processes include summonses for individuals to appear in court to address delinquent federal loans, including student, agricultural and other loans made by federal agencies."

When officials made contact with him on Feb. 11, the U.S. Marshals said that they only sent two agents to his door. They say that when they attempted to arrest him, Aker resisted and retreated back into his home.

"The situation escalated when Aker verbally said to the deputies that he had a gun. After Aker made the statement that he was armed, in order to protect everyone involved, the deputies requested additional law enforcement assistance. Additional deputy marshals and local law enforcement officers responded to the scene. After approximately two hours, the law enforcement officers convinced Aker to peacefully exit his home, and he was arrested without further incident," the agency said in a statement.

The statement from the U.S. Marshals noted that here in Houston some 1,500 people have been identified for not appearing in court to address outstanding federal student loans.

These are likely extreme cases that have been drawn out for some time though. It's still recommended that debtors pay back their loans as quick as they can.
A judge has now issued warrants for the arrest of these people. Marshals say that every attempt is made to inform individuals of their initial summons before it comes to what Aker faced. "
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/US-Marshals-say-man-wasn-t-arrested-because-he-6834620.php

@enoch

No, no, no, man, I would never downvote something because the speaker held an opinion about a certain topic that I disagreed with. Rather, I downvoted this because the subtext of the video is clear: you don't have to listen to what SJWs say because they are self-important blowhards who were coddled as children. Doesn't matter what the argument is that they are proposing. They are SJWs and therefore their ideas cannot be worth listening to.

And more specifically, if you pay attention to the images he is showing as he narrates his stance: you don't have to listen to what Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, etc. say about games (he's showing their pictures while decrying SJWs).

This is classic GamerGate tactics. Rather than actually debate the issues, which are the representation (or lack thereof) of women and other minorities in video games, he wants to dismiss the argument out of hand. You see it all the time in GamerGate supporter comments:

"Anita is a con artist looking to scam Kickstarter supporters out of their money."
"Anita is the feminist equivalent of a TV evangelist."
"Anita has hijacked feminism."
"Anita isn't even a real feminist."
"Anita's not really a gamer."

And so on.

They are desperate to get people to dismiss Anita's criticisms out of hand, mostly because even the most ardent haters can't deny there are problems with the representation of women and other minorities in ALL media, some of which are specific to video games.

It's all a big distraction from the issues. So what if everything GamerGate supporters allege is actually true? So what if she were stealing kickstarter money? So what if she is pushing some kind of feminist agenda in games? So what if she has appointed herself as a spokeperson for feminism?

Even if it were all true, the only important question is whether her arguments about the representation of women in games are valid and well-founded.

So, I downvoted this because essentially the author is advocating judging arguments on the basis of the arguer's reputation (for example, as an SJW) rather than on the merits of the argument itself. I see it as more blatant GamerGate propoganda trying to justify attacking the argument makers rather than dealing with the argument itself. Fuck that noise.

SJW is such a useless label at this point. It is now used purely as a cop out these days, a pejorative that supposedly gives you a free pass to ignore what someone is saying because clearly they are an coddled idiot (otherwise they wouldn't be an SJW).

I absolutely agree with you that justice, freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, etc. are important. And it is troubling that people in recent days are abusing the system to shut down dissenters. But this is the world we live in now and it really only reflects the political situation in Washington that has been going on nearly a decade now--lines drawn in the sand and ideas shouted down merely because they were spoken by someone on the wrong side of the line. I guess it isn't surprising that public debate is mirroring what we've been seeing in the capitol, only with the anonymity of the Internet allowing people to take it to a whole new level with doxxing, swatting, etc.

Sorry, but I still can't understand. We obviously don't get to wish away history and just declare America and everybody else should've allowed more Jewish immigration and thus the Jew's that fled to Palestine were illegitimate. If we are wishing, we might as well go all out for an alternate history where Hitler and the Nazi's respected human rights and strove for peace.

Fact is that millions of Jews were trying to flee persecution in Europe(and not just the Nazi's, they were just the worst of the bunch). Fact is that the nations of the world, just like today and always, didn't want to take in nearly that many refugees. They allowed in the smartest and the richest, and that was about the line that was drawn. Truly, I can not blame the still million plus Jews with nowhere to legally escape to choosing illegal immigration to locations deemed safer for them and their families. With Palestine already having a sizable Jewish population and being closer than many other places, it made perfect sense for them to flee there. I really can't see any rational objection to this you've raised save for declaring their situation NOT that desperate or that magically we should've changed history and had everyone else act better, which plainly wasn't something the European Jews could rely upon.

As to theft of land, prior to the total outbreak of civil war in Palestine, it cut both ways. You again seem to refuse to acknowledge this. It was not just the Jews unfairly and violently dealing with the Arab Palestinians, but it was equally Arab Palestinians doing the EXACT same to the Jewish Palestinians. With the British pulling out, both parties were grabbing for land and power. You talk as though the Arab Palestinians were standing there holding out roses and snacks for the Jewish Palestinians only to find themselves shot down for the favour.

After the break out of civil war the Jewish Palestinians and refugees absolutely gained more land than they had at the outset. That is hardly the only time in history that a civil war worked out that way though. More over, when Israel accepted the UN 2 state solution, it was the Arabs that refused, allied with the surrounding Arab state to grossly outnumber the fledgling Jewish state and swore to drive the Jews into the sea. The exact quote is from Azzam Pasha, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, who declared "We will sweep them into the sea". When that war ended, Israel was even larger than when the war started. If that counts as 'stealing' land I think your a little too lose with your definitions. When a much larger alliance of nations tries to destroy a smaller one, is it really expected that the smaller nation return all land it gained as a manner of good behaviour?

You should really qualify your entire piece with "My particular brand of feminism..."

If you combined all forms of feminism to establish some kind of mean set of values, the line would be drawn somewhere in the realm of "at the expense of men", or nearby quotas in the workplace rather than merit. Your particular view is fairly moderate and, in my completely not backed up by any sort of empirical evidence opinion, fairly unrepresentative.

For myself, I prefer humanist. All people deserve the same common rights, opportunities etc, and they should not come at the expense of others.

no mistaken assumption my friend.
just looking at the bigger picture is all.

was the "company" really disgusted by this mans behavior?
or were they performing damage control?
i suspect the latter.

which is why i brought up the PC police and the inherent dangers within.i even referenced a case in canada which had gone too far.(in my opinion).

does the company have a right to fire him? short answer? yes.
but nobody is asking about this mans rights,and if they are honest with themselves it is because he is a grotesque example of a human being.

so you try to further your point by doing a thought experiment,and i hate thought experiments,but ok..lets play:
what if he was advocating the legalization of sex with prepubescent children?

ah my friend.
this is easy.
the answer is arrest and convict.
but why you may ask?

here is where i think you may be misunderstanding my argument and your thought experiment reveals this quite plainly.

to YOU.this example of child sex and our racist turdnugget here are the same.

they are not.

because advocating to legalize child sex is an "intent to harm".the adovcating will result in actual harm of actual children.see:child pornography.

while turdnugget here has actually harmed no one.
nobody was actually harmed.
maybe disgusted.
maybe a feeling or two.

lets try another thought experiment.
what if this man was filmed not being an ugly racist but rather smoking weed with some buddies.

should he be fired?

another one:what if he is filmed at a sanders rally (unlikely) and the president of the company is a die-hard trump supporter?

should he be fired?

look,it is easy to view this man losing his job as some kind of justice,but we need to be honest why we are ok with THIS man getting fired and that reason is simply that he is grotesque and offensive.

but he did not actually HARM anyone.he was just offensive and IS offensive to our sensibilities.

i agree that there is an irony in this situation.the man verbally attacks a perceived threat to his livelihood,and then loses that livelihood.

it may have a certain poetry to it,but is that justice?
no.

the larger argument is this:when is it considered normal or acceptable to hold people to a company standard when they are:
not working.
not in uniform.
not representing the company in ANY way.
are not getting paid for this off time.
are engaging in activities which are harming no one but may be viewed as contrary to company standards?


where is the line drawn?
and who draws that line?
who enforces it?

while the company has a right to fire you for any reason it wishes,does it have a right to impose behavior,activities,personal life choices when you are not on the clock?

with the PC police engaging in ever more draconian and bullying tactics to impose their own sense of morality upon others,based on what THEY feel is righteous and morally correct.i feel this will get out of hand very quickly,and the canadian example i used is only one of many.

here is one thing i do not understand.
how come when the religious right uses tactics very similar to this,we all stand up and shout "fuck you buddy",but when the PC police behave in an almost identical fashion....people applaud.

that is just NOT a morally consistent stance.
it is hypocritical.

so maybe in the short run we can view this ugly example of a human being and think to ourselves that some form of justice was served,but that is a lie.it may make us feel good and tickle our moral compass as somehow being a righteous outcome to a reprehensible piece of shit,but it is no way justice.

in the larger context and taken to its logical conclusion:this moral calculus could be a future metric to impose obedience and compliance from,not just turdnugget,but EVERYBODY...and that includes you.

and THAT is something that i find extremely disturbing.

the PC police are having a real impact,with real consequences and even though they may have the best of intentions,the real result is social control,obedience and compliance.

i would rather i keep my liberty and freedoms to do as i wish.the PC police can suck a bag of dicks.

On a side note not dealing with the particulars that started the conversation.

Whats a choice and what's a need can be argued forever depending on many variables and from whose perspective. When is something a need and not a choice, and need for who. Where is the line drawn.

I wouldn't be surprised if everyone here actually feels pretty much the same, but the words just got in the way

Yes, you are quite correct, my friend, I do wish people did not want the terrible, disastrous, evil, war starting, family destroying, psyche destroying, basis for xenophobic hate called religion.

But that's not what I said or was talking about.

What I said is that absolutely no one NEEDS religion.
Some people are drawn to heroin...none of them need it.
Most things humans create are not necessities. Religion falls into that category. It's un-needed, and overall it's a huge 'negative' on society and humanity. Period.

You seem to have an issue I once had, the resolve of which has helped me in every aspect of life. ...that being understanding and paying attention to the difference between "need" and "want". (and I sincerely hope you can gain that understanding in a better and faster way than I did, and without ever being in need) No one needs religion.

@newtboy

Wishful thinking on your part, Newt Dear. You both dearly want people to not want religion.

Billions of people choose religion. Some fake it. Some leave. Some hate it.

My brother grew up in a secular household and has been a devout Mormon for 40 years. I grew up in the same household, and find the idea of organized religion intellectually embarrassing.

Both of you are railing against the preponderance of evidence you are surrounded by. SOME people are drawn to religion. This is just a part of human existence.

I find it so odd that both of you want this fact to be incorrect. Humans create religions, which lead to churches. They have done it for millennia. How you can look at the evidence that surrounds you and say it isn't so baffles me.

It's all good. Just like my brother, you want to believe what you want to believe.

I don't try to argue my brother out of his dogma. So I'm going to stop trying to argue you guys out of your dogma.

I think if someone is in a particular church -- or not -- or whatever they are personally drawn to -- IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS TO JUDGE THEM.

If they need it, they need it. Whatever happened to them in their childhood, or whenever -- the church -- whatever church -- or non-church -- fits them.

You are an atheist, right? I don't know if you grew up in a church or not. I don't know why it is so terribly important to you to be an atheist.

But it FITS you.

It is the height of judgmental righteous behavior to look at anyone else's choice and say it is wrong.

Am I a Mormon? No. I agree with you. How this church started is the height -- or the depth -- of religious absurdity. How anyone can choose this church as an adult? How can that be.

And yet. My brother -- who has a Master's Degree in Aerospace Engineering from USC, military pilot, history buff, wide stripe of artistic urges and talents -- this guy chose the church in his early 20's. For his own reasons. Because he needed it, coming from our family of origin.

To quote Jerry Maguire -- it completed him. And like love, it is illogical and not for anyone else to judge.

You don't like religion being all judgey? I recommend you stop doing it yourself, and let people be.

Now, the Mormon church getting involved in the laws of the land? I got a big beef with that.

But as for individuals, making individual choices, for individual reasons.... I gotta say I don't see much difference between your judginess and any Catholic priest laying down "God's law" about how people are "supposed to" believe and behave.

You see that, don't you? There is no difference between your judgement and any religious person's judgment?

Anyone notice that some conclusions of the basic premise were drawn from the behavior of rats? It's kind of interesting how we all just kind of nod and smile when a scientist or psychologist draws conclusions about us from rodents. The reason that the rat is happy in rat happy land is because that is all the reason the rat is here; to be a rat. If a rat is getting his senses stimulated, physically and socially, he is going to be happy because there is nothing more to his life. There is more to our lives than having our senses stimulated by physical pleasures and social interactions.

We, unlike rats or any other animals, were created to have a relationship with our Creator. Existence in the material world will never fully satisfy anyone, because our hearts are longing for eternal, and not temporal satisfaction, which only God can give us. Our happiness on Earth is largely dependent on our conditions, and if our conditions are bad, happiness and peace are fleeting. Real life with God brings a lasting satisfaction and peace which transcends every circumstance of life, and a living hope which buoys the spirit and brings unending joy.

I agree with the idea of the cage, and that cage is the prison of sin. it has nothing to do with social connections, or lack thereof. Some of the most famous people on Earth, who have the whole world as their oyster, are addicted to drugs, depressed, disillusioned, and grasping for meaning in their lives. Sin is a spiritual prison which brings only death and destruction. In this life you reap what you sow, and the wages of sin is death. A seed thrown into dry ground, cracking under the noon-day sun, is not going to bear any fruit. So it is when people go into the desert of sin looking for paradise; the illusion will occasionally be dispelled by a mouthful of sand, but like a rat they keep going back to the trap.

There is a way out, because although we cannot pay for our own sins and escape the trap, the Lord Jesus Christ took the punishment for our sins so that we could be set free. On the cross, He paid the price for our sins, yours and mine; when we begin to trust Him as our Lord and Savior, He will give us a new life, and a new heart with new desires to turn away from sin and live according to His will. We are set free from the bondage, not only of addiction, but sin and death. He heals our deepest wounds and comforts us, he heals deep seated habits, depression and mental illness.

When you open the cage of sin and let the Lord in, this scripture begins to operate: 2Cor3:17 Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty

Isn't that a fractal tree? A poorly drawn one, but fractal none the less?

What about pi-ala-node.

No wordplay? Should I assume pun is not intended because punishment? IKEA little problem with this, so please take a seat. I have a problem with IKEA - everything in the showroom is meant to be for sale but the curtains were drawn. I have lots of jokes about IKEA, but I won't furnish Videosift with them: they're inside jokes.

@MilkmanDan, I get where you're coming from. I think that people should have a basic right not to implicitly support something they vehemently oppose, i.e. a eco marketing company shouldn't have have to support some climate deniers, or anyone at all shouldn't have to bake a nazi cake.

But as you pointed out with your race example, lines must be drawn somewhere. I don't support anyone getting to decide they won't serve people because of race or gender and for me, sexual orientation falls on the right side of the line? Don't want to bake a cake for a black wedding? Fuck you, if you fell that strongly, be prepared to be sued or imprisoned. And same for a gay wedding.

Interesting, but I quite prefer the hand drawn look of the original.