there was some actual timely and poignant commentary in that one.

Upvote for awesome commentary.

ok,that is not fair,i adore that piece from the oatmeal but it really does not apply to this current discussion.

at least in my case,and my commentary.(i do not want to speak for anybody else).

i simply was using the very same metric prager was using to make HIS point,and turned it upon itself,because his logic is obviously biased,and flawed.i was using HIS parameters to come to a different conclusion.

i am not coming from ideological standpoint.i was simply pointing out the flaw in his logic.my own,personal biases and prejudices,have nothing to do with my conclusions.

so what exactly is unbelievable?

that people pointed out that his argument is weak,facile and totally without merit? do you think this is due to some partisan bias? some emotional adherence to an economic or political system?

or maybe his conflation of a socio-economic political system and murderous,despotic tyrants was an incredibly weak tactic to make the argument that communism was "evil".

now you are free to believe whatever you wish,and maybe you think that communism is actually "evil",but if that is the case,then i would suggest that you do not utilize the tactic prager uses in this video,because HIS argument is incredibly weak and flawed,and easily de-bunked.

personal biases and predjudices have nothing to do with this mans shitty argument.

and no offense mate,but countering that people disagreeing with this video is somehow due their own partisan,political philosophy,is just as weak as pragers shitty argument.

prager made a shitty argument,based on extremely flawed logic,in order to push his own biased agenda.we exposed that flaw,plain and simple.

political affiliation had nothing to do with it.

No sir. Not yet at least. That's nothing (edit:noting, stupid spell check) that his saying he's the sole source for truth is akin to their MO, and he should not repeat it, even jokingly, imo.

You seem to have missed the first half of the post, where I mentioned I wanted to Upvote for the reasons you mention.

Jimmy is moving from comedy to news commentary online, it seems. News commentary is what Beck and Jones do, btw....just saying. ;-)

I do agree, corporate media, which all buys their news from the same few biased outlets, are little more than propaganda sources and pablum these days. One more reason to be sad/outraged about pbs losing it's meager public funding.

45 votes and counting...

The problem you have is that you cannot look any further than the last post you disagreed with. There are dozens of videos showing good police officers doing their job, ie. helping the community. Negative commentary goes hand in hand with cops abusing their power or breaking the rules because they think they are above the law.

If you believe cops can do no wrong, you're as fucking moronic as a person who believes cops can do no right. Fortunately, both groups are an absolute minority around here.

Cheers for the promote.

You've just given me a... thought. A good mst3k-style commentary would make a far better Turing test than the standard conversation thing.

What transcript of what conversation?! Trump claimed to have been tapped, based on a Fox report, based on an Alex Jones theory. No evidence, like a transcript of any conversations Trump has had, has ever been produced....none. I have o idea what you're talking about.
And Faux news itself had to do a special report clearly stating that they never received the tips Napolitano claimed they had received in his commentary implicating the British, and they have NO evidence he was ever under surveillance....full stop.
Napolitano's commentary was pure bullshit, and they've apparently (astonishingly) taken him off the air for spreading it.
"The Russians did it" is from the FBI....Comey's the name, inserting himself into politics is his game....but he's backed up by the heads of no less than 17 intelligence agencies on the Russian involvement claim.

I believe this is the closest I have ever come to fully viewing this video. The sin tally and the snarky commentary moved it from unwatchable to barely tolerable.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

@ChaosEngine

i have many:teachers,police,firefighters as facebook friends.

during the run up to the election i was posting a ton of my research,analysis and commentary in regards to the election.

this,on it's own,should not be surprising,what WAS surprising is all the support i received from these people and who were simply afraid to like,or comment.

they were literally sharing my work with other people via private messaging.

each and every one expressed to me a fairly robust paranoia that if they liked any of my posts,or commented,that they would receive disciplinary action and that their jobs would be in jeopardy.

i found this very troubling and what i could not,and STILL cannot reconcile,is how some people not only ignore this very subtle form of censorship,but find it a viable and understandable in the realms of social media.

when you restrict what a person can comment or speak on due to fear.this is censorship.

in the case of justine sacco,she was simply making a joke and when put in context..a really damn good one.but due to the self-righteous moralizing of total strangers,her life was destroyed.

now there will be some that may still find this justified,and that is fine,that is their right but what REALLY chills me is that nobody is addressing the much deeper and far more insidious nature of public shaming.basically:other people saw what happened to justine sacco and will modify their social media persona accordingly.

this,in my opinion,will only result in a vanilla goo like substance that offers no challenging ideas,no conflicting opinions that offer an opportunity to discuss and debate difficult subjects,because debate starts with disagreement,and if you impose a fear of retribution by simply posting any content that may be construed as controversial.then the conversation ends...
and we all pay a price for that kind of groupthink.

this will force the really bad and worst of us to go underground,and reside in an echo chamber where their fucked up ideas are parroted back to them,resulting in a confirmation that their worldviews are correct.

conversely...

those who may have good ideas,or wish to engage in controversial subjects,or in the case of justine sacco..make a fucking joke...will be relegated to the "good little worker bee" position.who never challenges power or authority and simply obeys...for fear of losing:financial security,public standing etc etc.

they become fucking stepford wives.

and in my sincere opinion,this is the real danger.

I remember this story.

If your job is PUBLIC RELATIONS and you make a stupid post like that on a public forum... WTF did you think was going to happen?

Having read up on the follow up from this story, I don't think she's racist. I actually believe she her when she said she was having a go at white privilege, and to the few people that followed her on twitter, they probably knew her and understood her tone.

But like I said, twitter is a public platform, and devoid of context (one of the many reasons I don't use it), and again if your job is PR, surely you should understand this.

Basically, the takeaway from all this is that twitter is a fucking TERRIBLE platform for any kind of meaningful discourse, in fact, any kind of commentary beyond simple announcements and banal observations.

Sacco ended up meeting Biddle and in the unlikeliest of plot twists, they became friends.

*quality commentary on the increasingly overwhelming plight of the worker class?

You did good on that joke and on its explanation. I got it just fine without the commentary though.

I left your whole commentary here, because I make it a practice to delete all comments from my wall. Your essay needs to be saved for posterity.

So here is a quirk of Videosift.

If you are ignoring someone, and they make a comment on one of your videos, you will never get another email saying that comments have been made.

I had no idea of the implosion on that comment stream. Dear god in heaven.

What is really sad is I only wanted a temp ban. I honestly didn't know of @gorillaman's propensities. I am all for second, third and fourth chances -- even though some people have left the Sift in the past because the worst abusers were allowed back. I understood their pain, but I'm still all for more chances. If you love something enough, maybe you will change your behavior. I certainly don't change immediately. I will accord others the opportunity to learn over time.

So no edit help, huh? I think I'll use this:

As "Homeland Security" says, if you see something, SAY something. (Because here is the truth: As Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel wrote, "Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.")

Much cleaner. Don't need the snark bit. Quote marks. Gotta love 'em. (Quote marks, not parentheses, to denote snark. I'm getting old.)

I didn't address your tendency to tread lightly with me in my first response. I figured it was made up of three things:

1. My early days on the Sift, I had really thin skin. I was easily hurt and upset. One of the biggest gifts to me in my life was learning on the Sift to be clearer and stronger in my communications. And to walk away from the abusers. And to use the ignore button. I figured that my early reactions were in your brain pan still.

2. That tone of voice thing. It is real. What is a simple, clear declarative sentence in my head can be read as a whine-fest by others.

3. I think it is great that you write carefully when you write to me. Keep it up! It's called caring about the person you are talking to. I have zero problem with that. In fact, I see it as a Great Good. (Because if you aren't, and I lay my own internal tone of voice onto your words in a way that doesn't match the words in your head, you will be hearing from me. And I am just as verbose as you, my friend! A punishment worse than death!)

And yes. We are people who hang in there. It is a blessing and a curse.
Well, only a curse to those who roll their eyes and snort "good grief, just shut up!" I'm cool with it.

Thanks for hanging in with me. And I am truly sorry about gorillaman. He did it to himself, though. He did have other choices.

In solidarity, I say to you -- Fuck Homeland Security and ginned up xenophobia and racism.

(A poet? Do you write epic odes? Surely not haikus!)

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

Welp, here we go. I don't believe in forbidden words, but we do have a rule against hate speech - lest we turn into a Youtube comment thread.

There's a reason why VideoSift has at least slightly more intelligent commentary than Youtube - we do care about what you write here and always want you to consider that there are humans hanging on the ends of keyboards writing comments.

VideoSift is also akin to a club, a very loose one (we let anybody in) but we reserve the right to kick you out if you violate our rules.

Gman, although I would say you have contributed a great deal of controversial but worthwhile commentary to this community, the line has been crossed.

VideoSift is not your venue for free speech. We have rules and we live by them.

With much deliberation and consideration, I hereby ban Gorillaman from VideoSift. May Siftbot have mercy on your soul.

@newtboy
i think you are being a tad over-zealous in your commentary.
now you know i agree with you on pretty much all aspects of police:brutality,malfeasance,hubris,fascism etc etc..

but we both realize that for the majority of police officers it is a job,and one they take seriously.statistically this is just a plain fact.

so i am struggling to understand your rage induced commentary directed toward a cop who is simply saying "please,comply".

that is pretty sound advice when dealing with an agent of the state who is not only authorized to use physical force,but carries a gun.

i found his advice pretty non-controversial.

your obvious points non-withstanding,because your points are accurate and have caused incredible misery,but his advice is also just as sound,and if it could deter even just one police beating.wouldn't that be worth it?

i am telling ya man,izzo is a pretty straight up guy for a cop,and he addresses pretty much every point you brought up on his channel.i know some of those points he makes you will disagree with,because i disagreed,but this man will surprise you on a bunch of points.i know he surprised me.

here is a video of him talking about his impending termination.he knew it was coming because he exposed corruption in his precinct:
https://youtu.be/-4TpcIPKj_E
*edit:i should post this video next round,give it a watch newt.

he has one video where he talks about quotas,and the reason why they are supposedly "non-existent".they do not call them quotas,but they are penalized if they give out too many warnings,or write a lower cost infraction.

trust me man,put aside your cop hate and check this dude out.you can still disagree,but he does give a solid representation of a cops perspective.