You still don't get it.
It was an actual INTELLIGENCE report including some unfounded (not proven to be lies) accusations about blackmail against the president elect (*electorally), including the one about video footage of him having hookers pee on his bed alleged to be held by Russia as blackmail material. They reported that it was in the report listed as unfounded, not that it was true. That is NOT a fake story, it is real, it happened, they reported it. They factually checked, it is true. That the right has an inability to hear a news story without exaggerating it in their own mind instantly to create something to be outraged about, well, that's 100% on you.

If it was about Clinton, you would be angry that every news organization didn't lead with the story, and calling them useless propaganda machines for not making it the only story. I recall a few times exactly that happened during the election, even though the stories were covered on national news at the time, it just wasn't enough for you, even though the accusations/stories were total bullshit.

No, it's like me as president (or another publicly elected figure) hiring top notch professionals to make a report including accusations that may be upcoming, them finding some idiot that said Newtboy gave him a blowjob and he was going to blackmail be with video of it that was never produced (you might try to spell the name of the person you accuse properly, it looks better), and that accusation making it into the report listed as unfounded, and the report becoming public (the right has no leg to stand on complaining about how the information becomes public, btw...Clinton and DNC emails). That would be a true story...not that anyone including me would care. I certainly wouldn't give it credence by getting upset over something I saw as patently ridiculous that only idiots that already irrationally hate me would believe.....Trump, on the other hand, got irate, which is the reaction of the guilty when caught, not the actions of adults when accused of something silly that never happened.

That's the point. Free speech can potentially be an act which causes harm to others.

I don't have the answer for this. When I was younger, I tended to be a free speech absolutist. My opinion was freedom of expression was absolute and that we just had to accept the consequences as a price to pay.

I no longer believe that.

As a general rule, I am opposed to censorship. People should be free to say what they want and others should be free to respond appropriately.

But it's naive to think that free speech is absolute. Nothing is. So we all have to be mature and accept the fact that (as distasteful as it is) some speech is not protected. At a bare minimum, we have things like libel and slander (which are important, but also open to abuse as well).

Back on the topic of hate speech.... it's a tricky one. For me, it comes down to how you define "hate speech", and there isn't really a widely accepted definition.

It ranges from nonsense like anti-blasphemy laws (victimless crime, IMO) to controversial things like holocaust denial (patently bullshit, but not actively harmful IMO) to reasonable provisions against incitement to violence (neo-nazis etc).

There's also the concept of "negative liberty". X has the right to free speech, but Y also has the right not to be threatened or intimidated in their daily life (note: they don't have the right not to be offended).

Again, I don't have all the answers. My point is simply that the world isn't black and white.

Ironically, I'm somewhat echoing the sentiments in the video, in that facing an uncomfortable truth requires you to think and that's not a bad thing. But my uncomfortable truth is that not all speech can be free.

It's his contention that absolute compliance is your only acceptable recourse in every situation, even when the police are violently violating your rights, stealing from you, and lying about it, and his further contention that any abuse can be remedied by civil lawsuit ...which is patently ridiculous. (and he conveniently ignores that police officers are protected from civil suit by law, and can't be sued personally).
Also his BS contention that 99% of the time, when a cop shows up to any situation, they dominate....then why aren't near 99% of cases solved and 99% of those who flee captured instantly? It's simply a line cops use to pretend that near 50% of chases and fights end up lost. (or used to the last time I saw stats)

If he had said 'your best bet to avoid injury and further charges is to just comply'. I would agree, it's the rest of his speech that I found self serving and misleading.

So, he has a minimum number of tickets/charges to write every week, he gets penalized for not being as zealous as possible (or not writing enough), but he says there aren't quotas because they don't call them quotas? And you accept that? What?

I think Nerdwriter's knowledge of AWS is superficial (he admitted just finding out about them). AWS are not licensing their tech to other companies, they are renting time out on servers using their tech (mostly software). That graphic he showed of market share is also misleading - if you look closely it's just survey results of "do you use x,y,z cloud provider(s)?" (although undoubtedly AWS is the most popular by any measurement of # of customers, but it's not necessarily the biggest - hard to say because Microsoft, Google, and Amazon don't publish their numbers).
Renting time out on a server is orders of magnitude more scalable than installing and maintaining a bunch of sensors at thousands of retail locations.
Since their patents are vague enough, they could license that "idea" out to other companies who want to attempt the same thing, but probably they want full control of any brick-and-mortar store, to minimize support costs, and provide a consistent experience.
Plus, not every retail experience is like a grocery store, so it's a bit of a stretch to say they'll take over all retail everywhere...

Only thing they were way off the mark was getting updates via kiosks and cards... I hope their patent(s) were licensed by Apple and other tablet makers.

Honestly their Newspaper "app" looks way more appealing than the Apple News app I use today.

What kind of bullshit is this?
Any of these crimes he claims are happening would be incredibly easy and simple to verify, yet we have zero evidence that it's true, not a single case.
If people were being bussed from poll to poll, you can be guaranteed it would have been recorded and reported. Sanders people were on the lookout for just that kind of thing.
Having a fake ID card doesn't put your name on the voting rolls, so his contention that people are getting fake IDs and voting with them is patently ridiculous.
The only thing this video proves is that democrats can be idiots too, and can make idiotic claims just like republicans.

You know I agree with you, right? I am the one who said that this incident is the worst example of racism, after all.

To me, things like this are just more proof that every person who interacts with police should treat them like dangerous people they have the potential to be and show absolutely nothing but abject subservience. Because you absolutely can't trust them, whether you are white or not.

It can get you shot, making your point that "you can't do this to me" patently untrue. They can and they do.

So unless you are mentally ill or intent on "suicide by police", allow the humiliation and tug at your forelock.

Live to fight another day. Save yourself legal fees. Don't spend the night in jail. DON'T ARGUE. Seethe and GET EVEN.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

And get the training and the resources where they need to be.

A report that places chicken nuggets, turkey slices and bacon in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos is NOT equivalent to saying that quitting meat is the disease and mortality equivalent of quitting smoking.

That is patently absurd, and demonstrates what happens when someone tries to apply the scientific conclusion of a study to ...everything else. Scientific studies have a particular scope. They should state clearly within the study the limits of what the information can tell us.

1. How much of those meat products must you eat vs. how many cigarettes do you have to smoke? If i quit having one slice of bacon a week, I will not be healthier than if i quit smoking 10 a day.
2. The meat products you refer to make up only a small fraction of the meat based produce that is available. You might as well say "krokodil is bad for you, so stop taking your insulin."

I expect you to admit that the bit from the comment quote (put in bold) is wrong.

"Not really, because it has been patented six years ago"

Star Trek IV
Produced: 1986
Takes place: 1986

ALON
First patented: 1980 (U.S. Patent 4,241,000 )

Thanks for this thoughtful response.

I agree 100% with the idea of catching more flies with honey idea. Treating people with respect. All of that stuff is patently true to me.

However. Of course there is a "however."

I don't agree with the "clearly condescending" assessment. I did not find the delivery condescending in the least. I found it sarcastic and pissed off and appropriate to the topic.

This video is not meant to add to the debate or woo people to her side. It is flat out laying out the facts with a take no prisoners attitude.

That you think this is condescending and I guess poisonous is interesting to me.

Is this indeed sexism at work? Did you read Crushbug's comment? Do you understand that women are "policed" as to their tone of voice all the time? In fact, your mother's (true) advice that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar is actually the internalized oppression that we women struggle with all the time. Be sweet, be kind, be oblique. Manipulate your (male) partner into doing what you want by leading him to think it is his idea.

Just writing this out is making my stomach hurt. It is so poisonous, the suppression of free human expression that women are subjected to in so many cultures. (Think of young Japanese girls who cover their mouths coyly when they laugh.)

Having said all this, please don't think that I believe that men are the evil oppressors. Men have a different pressure put on them that distorts their psyches -- "be a man" is just as deadly as "be sweet".

I was just saying to a friend the other day -- I was wondering how it screws up little boys' heads when daddy leaves the house for a week long business trip, and tells his 4 year old son "You're the man of the house now. Take care of your mother." Good lord. He's a child! He needs her to take care of him!

Anyway. There is much that I agree with in your long and thoughtful response. I just don't think that these ideas are appropriately applied to this comedy video. As you sort of implied with your addendum.

Wow! It's like those patent trolls from Texas - sucking the marrow out of the economy.

Sad to hear them going after small businesses like that too. Shame!

I didn't enjoy the video, i didn't see it as a triumph of common sense or reason. I also didn't enjoy the flippant criticism as though this was specifically an attack on feminism by @enoch who never has anything good to say about feminism - which is patently bullshit and follows on from the simplistic line of thinking "feminism good, anti-feminism bad".

Criticism of feminism/civil rights/anything is valid and important. In the same way as Fathers For Justice must guard against a minority of members that are misogynistic, so must feminism guard against a minority of members that are misandrist. Why? Because these people turn non-members against you - being able to criticise your cause is one of the healthiest ways to grow it. Ad hominem attacks are no better than chauvinism and i would hope that my fellow feminists would agree with that.

What i did enjoy was @Januari 's comment which was critical of the point without being critical of the person and perfectly summed up the reasons why a decent person *should* dislike this video, in a vacuum.

The patent is clearly invalid.
It fails both the "prior art" and "non-obvious" aspects of a patent, in that cell phones existed prior to the creation of this patent and using voice communication over a device is not "non-obvious" (at least, not since the 1900s).

So pretty much yeah, "WHAT THE FUCK PATENT OFFICE?" indeed.

I don't get his "this is what happens when the government controls patents" rant. It's a bad patent, they happen, and patent reform is badly needed in the US, but if you're going to make a statement like that, you need to propose an alternative.

If you don't want the "government" controlling patents, you want ... what? Get rid of patents altogether? Allow a private company to control them?

Turns out I own the patent on filming documentaries about patent scams and trolls.

I am SO suing this motherfucker.

Congratulations! Your video, How Peter Braxton defeated a patent troll and still lost, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 31 Badge!