I'm legitimately going to miss this guy. And his role is not one easily replaceable; I cannot think of any other person who is so selfless yet inspired to continue to research the cold hard facts and saying it how it is. The status quo will be happy that he goes, but for millions - this guy remained a real inspiration. Someone who found the calling of anarchism at a very young age and never let go. He is someone who knows the historic truths as well as understanding the fabric of the mind to a somewhat tangible degree above others and without much personal infliction. The guy looks at facts and could care less about your opinion, or his own "opinion" or emotions on topics. He is an incredibly rare and crucial resource.

seriously dude?
that is a serious statement?
and why should i consider ANY criticism you offer with having any weight?

considering that on another video i posted you claimed the speaker was a nutter.thats it..no actual rebuttal or opinion..just "nutter",and when i asked for your actual reasons for your opinion.you admitted never having watched the video.

so let me guess.
ezra levant is maybe somebody you disagree?
(nevermind that it is lauren southern that has been following this case closely).
maybe he is right wing?libertarian?

maybe he is,i have no idea,but just by your knee-jerk and ill-thought out comment and your OBVIOUS bias.i think it is safe to assume that is the metric on how you judge the information you consume.

so let me ask you.
what information being presented here is false?untrue?fabricated? hell,even biased?

hmmmm?

you have done what you always do.
you do a drive by comment that attacks the speaker,poster or lecturer without examining the evidence and/or information.

and in THIS case you insult ME.
that somehow because i post a video from someone you happen to disagree,dislike or despise automatically translates to me becoming a bobknight wanna-be who worships at the altar of limbaugh.

so you dont like ezra levant.
who cares?
does that make ANY of the information in this video any less true? or pertinent?

nope.

so if you do not have anything of value to offer except for petty insults.i ask that you kindly take this cookie and go play outside.this is an adult conversation.

hey man,
thanks for addressing the distinctions between the two videos.

and i can agree with your assertions,but i fear the larger implications.

i have been down the rabbit hole for a few days now in regards to "intersective third wave" feminism,and wow..juuust wow.

the deeper i go,the more disturbing and horrific it becomes.

so yeah,
turdnugget losing his job does not really bother me as much as how easily i see social media being used to control speech,opinions and attitudes.i guess i saw a tactic that could easily,and quickly be abused.which was mainly due to what was happening to greg elliot and the targeted prosecution by the SJW third wave feminists.

now maybe i conflated the two,but i think my concerns are not specious.

you know me.
i am ultra anti-authoritarian.
i am prefer a free market of ideas,which translates to zero censorship..none.
anything goes...
lets put it all out there,so we can weed out the bad ideas.

so turdnugget losing his job?
not that big a deal,and lets be honest..he was grotesque,but how easily would it be to fabricate a situation? edit? how many examples do we need to see that just the act of accusing can have devastating effects upon the accused with little or no evidence?

and that is where my concern lies,not some idiotic racist who was too dumb to shut up in front of a camera.

@Sayja
i can agree that that this is not a zero sum situation.

but i have to disagree that this video,or even the other video i posted has anything to do with 'mens rights".

and i have to take you to task for your specious claim that 'there seem to be a lot of men on the internet that feel threatened by feminism".

while i cannot speak for anybody other than myself,i can quite confidently state that i personally,do not feel threatened by feminism,but i find this "intersective third wave feminism" to be a form of feminism that,until recently i have been wholly unaware of ,to be out of touch and nothing that resembles the feminism i grew up with.

and i think that distinctions differentiating the two forms of feminism extremely important.

equality,fairness and justice are noble ideals to fight for and classic feminism did just that.it took amazing courage for those women to stand up and fight for issues regarding women.
see:suffragist movement of the 1800's.

or the bra-burners of the 60's fighting for their sexual rights and rejecting traditional social norms.that they owned their bodies and therefore.their future.

even the proud women of the 70's 80's and 90's who brought to light the casual nature of our society in regards to womens sexuality and heightened rape awareness.

what i find most disturbing,and i am struggling to understand (and maybe you can help me in that regard) is how the feminist movement which has taken courage and determination,addressing real and actual womens issues,has been perverted into this weird,perpetual victimhood decrying the "oppressive patriarchy".

because this new feminism is threatening and is garnering actual real life consequences.
see: stephanie guthrie vs greg elliot
see:the duke lacrosse players

cases where you don't actually have to BE harassed,you just have to "FEEL" as if you are being harassed.

or where you can accuse three boys of rape,get the coach fired and ruin three boys lives,and when it is revealed to all be a fabrication?

the accuser walks away with zero consequences.

so i find it delicious irony when some will defend these "third wave' feminists and state EMPHATICALLY,that words have consequences and that these men SHOULD pay a price for their words.

yet the accusers rarely,if ever,pay for THEIR words.no consequences for THEIR misrepresentation.they just falsely accused.which had real world consequences.

hypocrisy much?

and where was this "oppressive patriarchy" swooping in to protect these men?

can you explain how that is morally,or intellectually consistent?
because it appears to me to be pretty damn hypocritical.

so this woman disagrees with the current trend of feminism.
that is her right and she explains why she disagrees.
does this mean she deserves the death threats and threats of physical violence from these feminists?

so if you could explain to me this "third wave feminism" i would really appreciate it my friend,because i dont get it and it is a real break from the philosophical feminism that have grown accustomed.

Okay, and let me clarify were you did indeed say it should be forever held against him.

"Yes, it's OK, and normal, for future employers to investigate potential applicants and disqualify them if they show insanely poor judgement publicly like this guy did. You think that's not OK?"

I am owner Newt of Newt's Fabrications and Misunderstandings. I see this guy applying and look into his past. Would YOU hire this guy? Would you, as a black employer perhaps, offer this guy a job working with other black employees?

No? So moving on. You think Walmart wants this racist? Even 20 years from now? Why the fuck would they do that when they have a plethora of job applicants to do that?

So he moves on to Lawdeedaw's Lawn Service. I barely pay minimum wage, and I work him like a dog. Since I am the job he can get, he takes me up. His history is held against him and he has to settle.

Oh, kinda like what happens to blacks who just want to be productive...and have committed past crimes.

Edit Added Later:

Oh, and enouch and VooDooV "defend" this guy much more than me...yet you implied I was a racist douchebag...in fact I never defended him at all and left them out...oddly enough...

In fact I
1-Attacked most businesses as greedy.
2-Said most racists like him are just too proud to take government funds (But I didn't elaborate as to how/why.)
3-And stated that the past should not indefinitely be held against people.

Unless I missed a post from myself (possible) I never even said this guy should keep his job...

@eoe
jesus christ dude..
could you be any more presumptuous?

first off,i didnt call you out specifically.
i rather enjoyed you and newts exchange,but my commentary was not addressing nor interjecting in that conversation.

second,the only argument (if you even want to call it that) that i proposed was to cut the moral absolutes out,because they are bullshit.

now maybe you do not engage in the morality argument that many ..MANY ...vegans DO attempt to utilize to better make their point,and hats off to you if you see the hypocrisy of such a tactic.

now please understand i am not ignoring that there is a morality factor in being a vegan and i totally respect that.what i am stating is to not become burdened with absolutes and attempting to use morality to further a position..or you will be called out on it and rightly so.

thirdly,
your comment is actually a straw man,not mine.
you posit a position i didnt take in order to refute that imaginary position.

which you took a step further by accusing me of not addressing certain aspects of an argument that i only tacitly referred to and in no specific or detailed way.

in fact almost your entire comment towards me is a fabricated argument that i never had with you.

so who are you arguing/debating with?
because i can say with some authority that it is not me.

maybe you took my tone or words as a direct assault on you or what you have written,but as anybody here will attest,i have no problem calling someone out directly.conversely,i have no problem being called out (if my fly is open,please let me know).

so if that is the case,allow me to offer an olive branch:
my girlfriend of many years is a devout vegan.
so i am full aware of the reasons why she became a vegan (at the tender age of seven,no shit) and for her the decision was mostly a moral one i.e:cruelty,abuse etc etc.

when we first started dating she attempted to use every tactic in the book to get me to see the barbarity in my callous and cruel meat eating ways.she would send me videos of the most horrific abuse of animals,slaughterhouse horror stories..i am sure you may be familiar with many of her tactics in attempting to reveal the moral imperative to stop this torture and abuse.

which i responded (much like alluded to in my original comment) by showing her videos of the horrific abuses perpetrated upon human beings just so she could have cheap clothing and those electronic gadgets she loves so much.

which of course made her feel absolute,crushing guilt.almost to the point where it paralyzed her.because she is an adorable sweetheart who genuinely cares for not only people but animals.

which leads me to the main point i was making:
you cannot make a vegan argument based solely on moral absolutes,because it will fall apart within seconds and you come across as a pretentious twat.

so YOU can make the decision to be a vegan based on moral grounds and that is totally acceptable,but you cannot take the moral high ground when debating veganism to further a point,because we ALL bear responsibility in the suffering of others.be they animal or human.

do you see what i am saying?

if you choose to indulge moral absolutes,then you will be exposed as a hypocrite,because when we use absolutes,that metric has to be applied equally to all factors of living.

which leaves us with the "distinctions" and the reason i say those are boring is because it becomes a narcissistic exercise of self-righteous twattery.

i recycle.
i refuse to shop at walmart.
i do not eat fast food.
i only buy organic.
i try to shop local.

all these things i do,not because they actually make a difference,but rather they make me feel better about myself.it gives me the "feel goods".even though i am full aware that in the larger picture,what i am doing means next to nothing.

but it means something to me.
and i think that is really the only real argument a vegan has to rely on to express their viewpoint.

i have seen the videos.
i am aware how awful,cruel and barbaric farming animals can be,but i like bacon.

i am an asshole.

This has become a pretty big issue in Japan recently, especially since a couple of years ago when it was discovered that prosecutors in the city of Osaka had unlawfully obtained confessions fabricated evidence for dozens of cases. The scandal led to lots of resignations and calls for re-trials.

There have actually been a lot of people in the past couple of years let off death row here because new evidence (DNA, crime reconstructions, etc.) has shown that they could not have been responsible for the crime. Still, the system is totally borked right now and the police/prosecutors have most of the power. There's been a lot of talk about the changes that need to be made (limiting interrogation times, requiring all interrogations to be video recorded, etc.) but nothing concrete has happened yet AFAIK.

So it's capitalism that makes grandpa manipulative and his children too wrapped up in their own daily lives to visit him?
The message this ad is sending is 'It's ok to fabricate drama to get your relatives' attention'. What the admakers want to communicate is that 'Edeka is a part of your home, your family life'. They're not really successful at it, the ad doesn't work as good as it could've. It would've been better if the children made grandpa believe that this year, again, they won't make it home for christmas but then, surpise, they show up anyways. With products bought at Edeka.
The loneliness of old age is a good theme for advertising but you have to get it right or you'll appear cynical and manipulative. Like grandpa.

Clearly, from the article, not a single one, anywhere in the department, from top to bottom, "outed" this murderer, and instead they covered it up, destroyed evidence, fabricated a story and repeated the line 'he was unfortunately killed by a single gunshot to the chest' all the way up. Not one 'good cop' to be found. As I see it, anyone in the department who's hands touched this are co-conspirators after the fact, and need to be charged themselves to the fullest extent of the law. It's only because of complicity of others that cops think, correctly, that they can get away with murdering citizens and claiming self defense. That makes them as much of the problem as the murderers.
Prosecute them all...right up to and including the chief...since they all knew the self defense, single shot story was BS (they had this video) but they continued to shield him by repeating it publicly and in official legal documents.

EDIT: It should be noted that without a complaining witness coming forward, (one that was forcibly removed from the scene and NEVER interviewed, just like every other civilian witness) and without the lucky happenstance that they didn't erase the dash cam footage like they did to other footage, for example the security camera footage from nearby restaurants, there would NEVER be charges for this 'officer', since his entire force covered up the crime.

OK, didn't know that food restrictions were abolished in the new testament. I guess I have to drop that argument. I'll stick with the mixed fabric one though. Since I'm certain she served a person wearing mixed fabric at some point...clearly we should stone her.

I have been taught that 'treat others as you would have them treat you' was considered the most important teaching BY Jesus (not just the most important teaching OF Jesus), yet these people are doing the exact opposite, by trying to outlaw any form of Sharia law while also trying to codify this 'Christian belief' as law. That just being one in an endless list of attempts at legislating (their narrow idea of) 'morality' or pure religious, completely non moral ideas (I'm thinking 'blue laws' here).
On that note, I always found it odd that so many Christians are so insistent on 'keeping the Sabbath holy', but always forget that the Sabbath that refers to is the Jewish Sabbath (the commandment was for, and given directly to the Jews, no?).
That means they're all doing it wrong....
...but what do you expect from a group that chants “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them." while bowing in front of statues and stained glass likenesses of people, places, and things?

The fabric thing is valid, but the New Testament specifically exempts food, so the food laws no longer apply. Of course the New Testament doesn't forbid owning slaves, in fact tells slaves to continue to obey their masters... so technically, slavery is still allowed by the faith despite their claims that they are the ones who got rid of it... of course the South used all the slavery verses to justify their use of slavery, just like during the 50's and 60's people used the verses about mixing races to justify keeping segregation going and refuse interracial marriage licenses. Really when it comes down to it, you can use the Bible to prove any side of an argument you want apparently... I guess god really is perfect as his book can be used to justify 100% opposite positions.. <eye roll>

I must guess her brand of religion does not have the 'thou shall not steal' clause, because at her rally they brought her out to 'eye of the tiger', with no permission from anyone in Survivor, and they're pissed. Taking someone else's property and converting it to your use is stealing in my mind, I don't know about hers.

I wondered how many people she refused licenses in the past because they were wearing blended fabrics, or had been seen eating shellfish, both of which are just as forbidden as homosexuality in the bible, actually those two are more clearly forbidden than homosexuality as I understand it, yet no one ever tries to legislate fabric choice or outlaw sea food restaurants. Hmmm.

America's problem is not guns, it's the awful social situation that rampant capitalism and consumerism has landed it in. Same as drugs aren't the reason why large communities of black people are stuck in the same cycle of drugs/gangs/violence/death. It's not because of the drugs, or the people themselves, it is because they are pretty much abandoned by society.

Guns are just a means to an end, and an easy one at that. They are an easy answer when you want to cause violence to someone else, or yourself.

The fact that so many people want to cause violence to others or themselves is what needs to be looked at.

I've visited many parts of the US and the people have generally struck me as friendly and polite to a fault. People will just strike up a conversation with you as if you were a long lost relative. I've had people sit with me on a public bus well past their stop just to make sure I got off at the right place. At it's heart, it's a great country. But the flip side is that currently, it's built on basic inequity and inequality. I was in LA when Katrina hit, and watching what happened was freaking unreal for me as a person who lives in an area prone to cyclones. When we get hit, the entire community bands together and takes care of each other. When New Orleans got hit, it was post apocalypse dog eat dog.

Getting rid of guns in the US won't stop inequality, it won't stop senseless accidents and it won't stop violence. The UK has had strict regulations on guns for years and *surprise* has a very high rate of knife crime. Australia introduced tough gun legislation after the massacre at Port Arthur massacre, but we didn't really have serious violence problems before that so while people claim that bans on semi-autos etc "worked", it's very hard to quantify going from "very little gun violence" to "very little gun violence" as much of a shift... It's a core difference in the social fabric of countries.

People who completely focus on banning the gun are neglecting to look at the bigger picture, and are often doing so deliberately because the bigger picture is far harder to solve. Same as the war on drugs. Regulate guns, sure, enforce safety and bring in high penalties for misuse or allowing your weapon to be misused. But banning them won't fix anything.

I don't really mind the video, thinking twice before owning a firearm is a good thing. But I think it misses the point.

How about when the mountain faces a colliding super mass of entangled and engulfed galaxies, twisting and tearing apart the very fabrics of its reality in several 100 million years.

See, you don't actually CARE about the mountain, you care about temporal genetic existence around that mountain. You're talking about a biosphere which thrives and will one leave this earth; leaving this earth to the inevitable and utter destruction of this mountain and every mountain in this galaxy.

Save the mountain? It's topography. It's not actually a thing as your human mind has convinced itself it is.

But from a practical perspective, considering my life and the life of my kin, the spirit of saving a mountain from evil humans appeals and is in my best interest. It just doesn't make sense from an ULTIMATE, universal perspective.

Extremely clever and insightful guy, and he has delivered a great piece of truth to the people of the world.
It sounds like he is leaning towards the Noam Chomsky school of thought. i.e. The war on terror is a fabrication, designed to protect the power, profits and dominance of the foreign policy elites and the powers they represent...

Yep. Good bloke. Good luck to him.