Fuck you, traitor. This isn’t a joking matter.
You aren’t even joking, you repeated this nonsense with all seriousness elsewhere.

Bombs aren’t peaceful. Many were planted.
Molotov cocktails aren’t peaceful. Many were found before they were used.
Armed forced entry isn’t peaceful. In most states it’s grounds for homocidal defenses.
Hunting congress with intent to harm or kill them isn’t peaceful. It’s treason.
Vandalism isn’t peaceful.
“Combat” isn’t peaceful. Trump directed the mob to start combat at the capitol building.
Destruction of public property isn’t peaceful. $hundreds of thousands in damage.
All these crimes were part of the “combat” Trump directed. Instigating sedition is a capitol offense that calls for a firing squad.

Joe is right, if the Trumps, who called for combat at the capitol building earlier that day, aren’t removed and arrested, along with every single identifiable terrorist in the videos and any police that helped, it is 100% approval of mob rule, and the next armed murderous mob should be hunting Trump and his family. In that situation, poor Barron is going to have to eat them all if he doesn’t want to be lynched and cooked with them.

Every Trump property should be burning right now as property of treasonous traitors. Every Trump family member should be under arrest. The 25th should be enacted, and Trump arrested for directing an attack against America. This was a violent attack on democracy at Trump’s clear and unambiguous direction, but the coward was too terrified to go with them as he promised to. Too bad, would have been nice to see him shot dead by capitol police.

I've never liked what this douche has as opinions, but his stance regarding moral-posturing over facts is spot on. Social media is just mob rule writ large.

...oh, and I was speaking about the guest, not Maher. That douche is okay.

The best way to explain it is that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. basically predicted that someday there could be an outcome like the most recent election, where people voted based on their emotions (fear, anger, hatred--all the Dark Side stuff) and not on logic or reason.

The Founding Fathers didn't trust the common man to be educated enough to always make reasonable decisions and wanted to ensure that there was a brake in place to prevent "mob rule." That "brake" is the Electoral College, a collection of (ostensibly) politically-educated individuals who could prevent demagogues (like Trump) from taking power.

I think this is the first time in history where the Electoral College can do the job it was intended to do. If the Electors put aside political partisanship, they'll recognize how putting a completely inexperienced, hate-inducing liar into the White House is a terrible idea and ensure Trump doesn't get the Presidency.

Of course, Electors not voting along party lines is in actuality highly unlikely to happen as, in the end, Electors are all long-standing and high-ranking Democrat or Republican Party members. I mean, if you were a Republican Elector whose party had spent the last eight years without a Presidential win, watching time and again as legislation in a Republican controlled congress gets vetoed down by a Democratic president, even a man like Trump is going to start to look tempting. So the safe bet is that Trump gets elected anyway and the Elector College proves itself again to be a pointless institution for this and all the other reasons explained in the video.

I didn't hear his response to 'mob rule is not a valid system of government'.

Loved this rant. Not much different from US politics - the two (or three...) political elites are only interested in (re)gaining power. Voters are no more to them than the mechanism to do that. The political elites have lied to them (the voters) and their economic options are being progressively eroded - so why shouldn't they be pi$$ed and be primed to grab onto any outsider promising them a better future ("Make America Great Again"...) - but of course they are being lied to by that faction as well. Where is the media in all this? They have lost any sense of neutrality (and integrity) and become party to the political elites. They have no credibility outside of the political faction they have aligned themselves with. So we end up with mob rule (democracy by another name) led by whomever is best able to tap into the ignorance and fears of the masses...

Shameful. Hopefully he gets suspended or fired for such a gross display of poor judgement.
But it's hard to feel too bad for these d-bags when they take over the roads, impede traffic, drive recklessly/illegally, and go all mob rule when someone honks at them . The least they could do in this scenario is move over when passing a car and/or officer pulled over to the side of the road (if it's not the law as it is here).

Amen (And I say that as an agnostic... =)

You cannot change someones mind by shouting at them or turning off their ability to speak, you can only try and bring something to the table to convince them.

Reminds me of that ex-KKK guy who harassed a black preacher for so long that the black preacher eventually outlasted him with peace and love and the KKK guy actually came up to him and asked to sit down and talk. Eventually he studied under the guy and talk over his role when he passed away iirc.

And you're right about the awful implications of trial by public opinion. History has born out that mob rule = no justice for all.

@Jinx
here is what you are missing,and i think should be a focal point in this situation in regards to burr:

1.while we may view burr creating a game where sarkesian gets punched in the face offensive,and maybe it is to you (i just find it in poor taste).this is a perfectly acceptable position to take.

what is NOT mentioned in this video is that burr created a very similar,distasteful game,with the exact same mechanics,for the exact same REASON a few years earlier,but in that case the face being punched was jack thompson,who was seeking to legislate by using unsubstantiated claims that video games promoted actual violence,but in THAT case it was a man whose face was being punched.

so where was the moral outrage then?nobody gave two shits.

2.guthrie responded by recruiting her fairly large feminist twitter followers to barrage burr contacts and businesses who he did work for.so it wasn't just guthrie but a group of like-minded women who banded together to,dare i say..harass? a video game developer who offended their tender sensibilities.

could we call this gaggle of offended women a cabal?
meeeeh..i think that maybe stretching the meaning just a tad in that regard,but i think it safe to call them a group of offended women.

did they have a right to band together and expose a person they felt offended by?
yep.they do have that right.

do i think it hypocritical and morally inconsistent to use the victim card,when years earlier burr created a similar game for similar reasons?but in that case it was a MAN getting smashed in the face?
yep..i sure do.

but here is where it REALLY goes off the rails.
you would think the target should be burr right?
after all it was him who created the sarkesian/thompson games.so it would stand to reason that burr would be the focus ..right?

well,you would be wrong my friend.
guthrie went after elliot for having the audacity to disagree politically with guthrie.
he never threatened her.
never used violent language.
in fact he AGREED with a large portion of guthrie's position.
he just felt it counter-productive to make a federal issue out of the situation,and advised a more cautious approach.

thats it.thats all he actually did on twitter.

and guthrie's response was,and i paraphrase "elliot seems to be unaware of our power as women.should i sic the internet on him?"

"sic the internet on him"

think about that for a moment,and let the larger implications come into focus.

so this mans life is ruined.
lost his job.
80k in the hole.
and for what?
HE didnt create the offensive game,so in what context can this be viewed as justice?equality?fairness?

no.
this is a lynch mob.
this is mob rules.
this is about privilege playing the victim in a victimless crime,and utilizing the internet to silence and punish dissent.

will elliot be absolved of all charges?
most likely,and that is even after the prosecutor changed the charges in the last minutes before sentencing in order to create a broader charge.

but that does not change the fact that elliot's life as he knew it...is over.

which is why i see a real and present danger with an overly PC community and social justice warriors who wish to impose their own set of morals on all of us.

we can look back in our own history and see the dangers of institutionalized morality police (looking at you christians).

this form of social control by way of internet bullying promotes censorship,stifles debate and literally quashes dissent.the fear of speaking your mind because it may draw negative attention from those who disagree and then translate to real world consequences that are long-lasting.

and as i said in another video,this new brand of feminism has almost nothing in common with the feminism you or i are accustomed and familiar with,at all.

i urge you to watch the video i linked to from girl writes what.she breaks down this case in a most excellent way,and it will become apparent that this new breed of feminists are just that...a new breed.

Yes, why vote when we can have brownshirted mods to carry out justice. Much more efficient. No need for mob rule when we can have an elite few do it. I like this idea. I vote for this. Make VoodooV the site's Goebbels!

Well that should make you feel quite at home then.

I am not "pro-gun" nor am I "anti-gun." You just made my point that democracy in the absence of individual rights turns into mob-rule, by virtue of a monopolistic, crony government.

Meanwhile, most of this "argument" you seem to be trying to have with me is primarily taking place in your head.

I love the conservative ideal that the best government is no government, or mob rule. I'd love to drop these people off for a week in a country that actually works that way.. like Somalia. Not that they'd likely survive that week.

Gotta love Krugman.. not as an economist but as a world class hypocrite rivaling Molière's Tartuffe. He's getting paid $25,000 a month to do zero work, while calling for the end of income inequality. <scoff> I wonder if he's ready to give up 70% of that to the federal government like he says all "wealthy" ought to do.

The headline might as well read, "Rich economist constantly holds forth on the evils of income inequality, while...." You get the point. Here's the back-of-the-envelope math on his recent windfall:

Not counting the $20,000 in non-transferable travel budget, moving bennies, etc. that they offered him, CUNY is paying Dr. Krugman a nine-month salary of $225,000. I presume he won't be working summer semesters, so let's say that's all his salary from CUNY for the year. Now normal tenured senior professors at CUNY make at most $116,364 a year. Adjuncts at CUNY make about $3,000 or so per course; you can teach at most 9 hours a semester. So let's say you're an adjunct maxed out at a 3/3 load; you make about $18,000 a year for that. So if Dr. Krugman wanted, he could pick out 6 adjuncts at CUNY and *double* their yearly income, just by giving away the amount of money he personally makes *over and above what the best-paid senior faculty make*. If he were willing to do the job (*) for a nominal fee (as you may know, Prof. Krugman has another line of work), he could literally pick some lucky adjunct at CUNY and double their entire year's income -- *every month of the year.

And honestly, @radx, what did the "progressives" expect would happen? This so-called "Democracy" can never be anything other than an "oligarchy," if not a governance by "mob rule" (and sometimes a combination of the two). If "Democracy" is the "least bad" kind of state/government possible as some (like Mark Twain) have claimed, then it's high time "the people" climbed out of the dark ages and lived without rulers, altogether.

The resultant "chaos" that would ensue would not be any worse (and in fact far better) than the kind of unintended chaos that results from the centralized power structures of state governance.

------

*Which, let's be clear, involves no teaching load, and seems to mainly mean that maybe he'll drop by the office every few months to share his brilliance with whoever happens to be there. The point for CUNY is almost certainly to purchase some of the aura from his name on the letterhead

Thanks Lilithia-I suspect that because of my recent foray with another user here suffering from chronic corn-cob syndrome, that the admins have hobbled me and this so with a predictable incivility, and have left me to figure it out on my own-I have NOT in my quest to clean the dead viddoe embeds up here,violated any rules of decorum relative to the hard-earned ability of raising the dead however, and would like to know why I am being treated like a second-class citizen of the site, if in fact, my suspicions are true....

If in fact this is the case, again: The mob rule mentality of relatively cattle-like predictability-rears again and again, an over-sized head...

If this is not in fact the case, apologies, I have no way of knowing yet as I have not had my question answered by an admin yet...

Ignorance is bliss perhaps-The mob rules even in China-Most comedy is sub-par brycewi19, it's not like anyone's ganging-up on you and your defense of the art is commendable. That the writers on this show are lazy or their juices aren't flowing so well might indicate that the quality of cocaine available nowadays is sketchy

All I need to see is one sketch from this guy's show to know I wouldn't be able to watch five minutes of it without cringing. Thanks, Videosift!!

Why not put him on "alert" and spam the poor boy with some love? I simply adore folks who "ignore" perceived problems-Never could stand the"ignore" feature, this mob-rules fix for all things icky to read....

How about this: Hey cluhlenbrauck-What the fuck does Adele's weight or assumed proclivities have to do with anything? Your comments wholly without context, merit, or meaning, if at all it fostered some discourse, so it does have meaning in that context.

Now-I got a real personal beef with folks who use this site and never contribute content beyond their spit-popping and mouse clicks-DO the sift a favor, become more active, choose your words to reflect the piss-poor education you received or didn't as a child, and fuck-on to a corner of the world you haunt and make a positive difference.
I ain't puttin' ya on ignore rookie, I think I'll make a fucking project out of ya till ya evolve, Van Dick