Jesus Christ. The only thing more pathetic than a man-baby president posting a video like this to twitter like some 12 year old internet tough guy is the ensuing media reaction to it:
He's inciting violence against reporters!
It seems like a physical threat!

Much ado about {makes jerk-off motion}.

Brilliant conflict resolution skills i must say. He talked that aggressive jerk back to reason.

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

Looks like some intense jerking around. Pretty cool to see this.

...unless it was staged.

We can disagree about who the biggest jerk was in the situation, but all of them are jerks at some level.

Jerks on stage.

Not at all.

They two pedestrians should have moved over for the car in the first place.

Why didn't they? Can't be sure.

Was there a giant puddle they were avoiding? That's not clear. It looks like there was a sidewalk, but still no bike lane for the cyclists who starts the video avoiding other traffic on a narrow road.

One thing that is clear is that it's not the pedestrians who started yelling. Even if the pedestrians were in the wrong for not yielding to the vehicle (they should have moved over) it was the driver who escalated the situation. This makes the driver the biggest jerk.

(I still think it looks staged.)

Serious question :

How does he know why someone [he could not see prior to the accident, given that they came from oncoming traffic on the other side of a wide median] lost control?

I mean, it's cool and all to bash texting... but was that the case here, or is it just internet circle jerking?

-scheherazade

He also blocked 2 other cars with the one he pulled out...
If its a Jeep add its really paining Jeep drivers as Jerks.

Like people, some animals are just jerks.

Hard to upvote that, but damn nature, you scary.

Would have liked to see somebody with more wit and intellect than I deconstruct Peterson's argument.

Just...don't be Edgelords k? I read Peterson's words for like, half an hour and my toes never stopped curling. and now I have cramp. I'm trying to get more comfortable at being made uncomfortable but, you know, don't be an abrasive jerk just for sake of it.

and don't hate on princesses - they were born that way.

also it's "Her Royal Highness, Princess of Videosift" to you plebs. lol compelled speech.

when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

Carter is the only president from my lifetime that I would break bread with. By far the most honest, thoughtful, moral, brave, and humane of all I've seen. All that have come after him are completely lacking in all of those traits. (Cue Bob's knee jerk rant about how he's the worst ever and a coward).

*doublepromote

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.