Here's thoughts for the 'let's be nice and fairs': Silence often connotes consent.-yarmo has not appeared to defend himself and may not but he sure haunts 2 of about a gadjilllion YT channels to slap-em up over here.

I've been the victim of the 'mob' here and this ain't it (though check this: How now, does yarmolenko offer ANY defense with his account nixed? He can't, which points-out a fatal flaw in the process here in that a unilaterally banned or as in this case, a ban-team attack on an alleged violation offers the accused no recourse for defense.

Happened to me 3 times ofr dissimilar infractions but when I was banned, I had to create sock-puppets to get back in the fucking building.

ALWAYS have thought this aspect of mob rule (and there have been mobs of 2-3 with douchebag as their influential character traits) on the sift a fatal flaw.

In all cases with myself, I was left to lurk and read the bullshit spewing from the mouths of douche after I was run outta town on rails.

It's fucking retarded, low-ebb, base human bullshit to me-Look what happened when we let blankfuck back?? He came, was awarded gifts and praises, he shit, he's gone. What a shining example of the human experience.

Ut oh, There are so many contradictions in your post. It honestly looks like you're starting to become unhinged. See this is why I quote your posts. I want you to be able to see what you say...makes it easier to spot those contradictions and makes it more certain that I am responding accurately.

It is strange though. It does appear that none of your arguments in your most recent post have anything to do with my recent response. You're making new arguments again without settling our original ones. I can only assume that means you're conceding my points.

You've asked me to prove your emotional manipulation due to your usage of "freedom" and "coercion" Oh...I'm sorry Ren, but you have missed it, but I already responded to that. Here, let me quote it for you:

"Coercion??!! Again, you're using this loaded language to emotionally manipulate us. I think George Carlin called it "Spooky Language!" Which laws are coercion and which ones aren't? How can you tell? When I obey traffic laws, am I being coerced? When I decide to not kill someone with a gun because the law says it's bad, is that coercion too??? Your two examples you give are really bad. There is no difference between the two except for loaded language. One example has positive language, the other one negative. If only there was some objective measure other than your truthiness."

There, I hope that clears things up amigo.

Ut oh, again, you referred to your original question. But Ren...I've responded to this numerous times? Did you forget? Here, let me quote those too:

"This is not exactly unprecedented to require certain things before a specific freedom is granted. Are people less responsible because of these restrictions? I think not, so how come guns are special?"

and..

"You're making a claim that people will be less responsible. *you* need to prove that. I don't need to disprove it, however I have given plenty examples of how existing requirements on existing freedoms don't seem to lead to increased irresponsibility. Burden is on you."

and...

"To your last point, but I already answered this in my previous post, by that logic, we shouldn't have ANY laws and thus we would become SUPER-Responsible!! It's a nice theory and all, but the reality is that life would degenerate into mob rule. How many other people have to pay for your "mistakes" before you learn your lesson? How much suffering and anguish does it take to "learn your lesson?" Sorry. I think you're not a student of history otherwise you'd know that this has already been tried in the past...the distant past. It doesn't work...that's why we have laws in the first place. The jury is in on this one. People generally like it that we have laws and an enforcement arm that attempts to stop the infringement of peoples' rights *before* it happens so that people don't have to "learn their lesson" at the expense of someone else's suffering. ""

and finally...

"I answered your question yet you continue to pretend otherwise. I showed you numerous examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted and no one is claiming they are less free because of them. You make the claim that people are less free because of gun control but you REPEATEDLY fail to demonstrate how other than to suggest we should be an anarchy. Who cares how many people suffer, they'll learn their lesson eventually right?? right?? Sorry, we tried anarchy, didn't work..we moved on. Just because you wrapped your claim in the form of a question doesn't mean shit other than you're really to play Jeopardy with Alex Trebek. You're still making a claim that people will be less responsible with less freedom. Its your claim, you need to prove it. I've said this before and you still haven't done it."

There. I'm really sorry, I thought you read all that already. That should clear it up. I'm sorry you thought I was avoiding it.

Unfortunately, you've contradicted yourself my friend. Earlier in your post, you admit there are no rules for us talking, but at the end of your post you put forth a rule for me...a dare..if you will. I don't think it's very fair that you don't have any rules, but I have to be...coerced into following your rules, do you?

If you do honestly think I'm a troll, I apologize, that certainly wasn't my intent, but you know, there is one rule that is known for dealing with trolls. Oh crap, my bad. You don't like rules, you think they take away your freedom, my bad.

I certainly hope that clears everything up buddy. Hopefully this does conclude our discussion. But then again, I thought we were done some time ago, but you kept bringing up different arguments and other distractions so I was compelled to correct your errors. HTH

PS. It is rather contradictory to accuse me of being juvenile, but you end your post with a dare. Oops! That must be so embarrassing for you!

Awww bully? poor @renatojj Unable to make good arguments so in an act of desperation plays the victimhood card. Boo hoo hoo...the gun lobby has a stranglehold on our gov't but we're being victimized and oppressed!! If only there was some way for you to...opt out which would end all of this. Freedom is a bitch isn't it?

Nothing cryptic about the relationship between freedom and responsibility. I'm the one who introduced the concept in this argument after all. That's not my complaint dummy. Responsibility is not the same as freedom. You're claiming (once again without anything to back it up) that freedom and responsibility are the same and that if you lower one, you lower the other. I'd ask you to back it up again, but you won't.

If you steal a gun, sure not having a permit doesn't stop you from using it, but you're in danger of losing those precious freedoms you seem to hold so dear. Again, you're changing the argument.

You like to use these loaded terms like freedom. How are you measuring freedom? Is it an objective measurement? Are there SI units for freedom? does a upstanding citizen have say..23 KWas (kilo-Washingtons) but maybe a convicted meth dealer only has 420 mWas? (milli-Washingtons) You seem to be the arbiter of what is freedom and what isn't so please, share with us your math!

Coercion??!! Again, you're using this loaded language to emotionally manipulate us. I think George Carlin called it "Spooky Language!" Which laws are coercion and which ones aren't? How can you tell? When I obey traffic laws, am I being coerced? When I decide to not kill someone with a gun because the law says it's bad, is that coercion too??? Your two examples you give are really bad. There is no difference between the two except for loaded language. One example has positive language, the other one negative. If only there was some objective measure other than your truthiness.

To your last point, but I already answered this in my previous post, by that logic, we shouldn't have ANY laws and thus we would become SUPER-Responsible!! It's a nice theory and all, but the reality is that life would degenerate into mob rule. How many other people have to pay for your "mistakes" before you learn your lesson? How much suffering and anguish does it take to "learn your lesson?" Sorry. I think you're not a student of history otherwise you'd know that this has already been tried in the past...the distant past. It doesn't work...that's why we have laws in the first place. The jury is in on this one. People generally like it that we have laws and an enforcement arm that attempts to stop the infringement of peoples' rights *before* it happens so that people don't have to "learn their lesson" at the expense of someone else's suffering.

You're a selfish sociopathic dick if you think otherwise.

It's all fun and games until someone infringes on *your* rights then suddenly, your stance changes. Or are you volunteering yourself to have a criminal come in and kill you and your loved ones. But hey, its ok. Freedom will teach the criminal a lesson...so it's all cool!!

Either you didn't already know this or you're just living up to your avatar pic. I'm starting to think it's the latter.

*promote

Here's the thing though. I am in favor of the split vote. It allows people in stronghold states who are in the other party to still have SOME voice and not be completely overruled by winner-take-all. There is a reason we're a republic and not a direct democracy. Direct democracy is not a good idea, there has to be at least somewhat of a buffer against mob rule and high population centers dominating every election.

The problem is, of course, gerrymandering. If the winners are allowed to redistrict as they see fit, then the whole thing is corrupt. District lines HAVE to be drawn by a strictly independent, non partisan group and/or adhere to strict guidelines so that it's fair.

The other problem is that while I favor the split vote, the GOP doesn't care what a fair system is, they just want to swing more votes their way. If winner take all gives them more votes, they'll go with that. If split vote does, they'll go with that. They don't care.

The same shit happened in Nebraska last election when Obama won a single electoral vote. The GOP there went batshit and pushed to return to a winner take all system. It was only when someone pointed out to them that in a decade or two, because the urban area's population will eventually outstrip the rural areas, NE would eventually become complete blue state that they dropped the idea.

Split vote is more fair in my opinion, but the district lines HAVE to be drawn independently for it to work.

I'm with Louis CK, I am offended by white people using the phrase "N-Word" instead of obeying contextual license with regard to language. Some douchebag on this site with head firmly inserted in ass, saw to it that I was banned on the grounds of "inflammatory" use of what he supposed to be an inferred jab at him personally (and black folks in-general) . I used the term "monkey" referring to humans in general nad I had no idea the guy was a black man. I did however know he was a fucking asshole, in general). The mob ruled with 2 votes to ban me, and I could not come to my own defense because my account was suspended already.

How fucking fair was that, monkey-boy??!

I agree, that the word has become less-than-fashionable, even among the AA community but seriously people, it's 2012 and in context a word has meaning and power as it sits, or you simply turn it into whatever the fuck suits your particular perspective.

So if simply seeing the word "nigger" (here, I'll type it bigger for you because it's easier to see and bigger rhymes with "NIGGER") sends your defective brain in the direction of judgement or racism, you're fucking developmentally-disabled and the schools you went to were shit. I love the word because it makes all you closeted racist's blood boil when you even think of it! I don't use it outside of meaningful context and I refuse to say , "THE "N" word because: the white people who invented it also invented the word "nigger" and just thinking of the phrase and the meaning behind it makes me embarrassed to be a white man.

But seriously, love white people. I think everyone should own one.

previously on Videosift...I seem to remember doing what I always do when I get a pocket fulla points-I used em up all really fast while I was rollin', usually on other people's videos and a LOT of sift talk posts. It'[s a way of saying , "Hey, I like the cut of your jib!" * quality!

Now, powers?? That's a different beast altogether. Why, as well as flagrantly abusing the powers I had earned through tenure and hard work I also set out, on occasion, to spank insolent children when their bullshit started stackikng-up so high it began to waft. Yes. I don't work well with ALL, just most others.

There came a time when the mob ruled in the favor of a handful of cunts, I trust this won;t be an issue in future, as everyone knows how to engage in civil PRIVATE (hint, hint, douchebags) discourse before pulling out weapons.

The worst part of being banned unilaterally by a single user is not having an arena to adjust grievances mutually and correct simple misunderstandings....You must simply watch as assholes make shit up after you are gone.

I am sure that if anyone lurking smells a personal resemblance to the aforementioned odor, they are now welcome to come forward anytime, and kiss my natural euro-mutt ass!!

I hope that this bit of personal reflection has afforded you with a better understanding of the shaping of Videosiftistory dynamics.
MORAL: Some but not all rules and somebunal egos, are asking to be broken.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
also, the Electoral College is a power check against the people. The electoral college is not required to vote with the peoples choice. Should the people choose a 3rd party candidate, the electoral college, as part of the establishment, would side with the establishment.
while we enjoy many things here in the states, democracy is not one of them.

You're 100% right. Now what are you doing about it?
>> ^renatojj:
>> ^gorillaman:
"I refuse to opt-in to mob rule. I do not give you permission to run my life."
Voting is apathy. If you want to be politically active get a weapon and use it.
Best answer ever.

No, it's a retarded answer. It's the answer of someone with the mentality of a 13 year old boy. But at least it's got the right motivation, if entirely the wrong methodology.
Personally, I think this is something Australia got right. You want to be a citizen? Fucking vote.
Once again, if you're not voting, what are you doing to fix the issues that cause you to not vote.


i guess that depends on what you call "participation"
i spent 2 yrs as an attorney with the fed gov, afterwhich i worked public interest law with disability, domestic violence victims, and then incarcerated juveniles (prison reform). Then I switched out of law to study the spine and neurology and have spent the last 12 yrs getting better at getting people out of pain, and teaching it.
now the question isn't what am i doing about things, the question is whether punching a button on a ballot machine is actual participation or just a way to make people feel like they are participating, when in fact, they couldn't be more apathetic or out of touch with reality.

>> ^criticalthud:

also, the Electoral College is a power check against the people. The electoral college is not required to vote with the peoples choice. Should the people choose a 3rd party candidate, the electoral college, as part of the establishment, would side with the establishment.
while we enjoy many things here in the states, democracy is not one of them.


You're 100% right. Now what are you doing about it?

>> ^renatojj:

>> ^gorillaman:
"I refuse to opt-in to mob rule. I do not give you permission to run my life."
Voting is apathy. If you want to be politically active get a weapon and use it.
Best answer ever.


No, it's a retarded answer. It's the answer of someone with the mentality of a 13 year old boy. But at least it's got the right motivation, if entirely the wrong methodology.

Personally, I think this is something Australia got right. You want to be a citizen? Fucking vote.

Once again, if you're not voting, what are you doing to fix the issues that cause you to not vote.

>> ^gorillaman:
"I refuse to opt-in to mob rule. I do not give you permission to run my life."
Voting is apathy. If you want to be politically active get a weapon and use it.
Best answer ever.

There are so many pieces on this theme and yet I never hear anyone give the right answer. "I refuse to opt-in to mob rule. I do not give you permission to run my life."

Voting is apathy. If you want to be politically active get a weapon and use it.

Good thing Obama reminded everyone that this is a land of laws, not a place where mob rule takes over...oh wait...he didn't.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Suddenly the sanctity of law matters? Since when does the left give a shit about laws? Since never. Just like the end run around voters over gay "marriage". Mob rule.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
One day the left will call anti-pedophiles "bigots". It's inevitable.

Yeah, 'cos sex between consenting adults is exactly the same as paedophilia.



The rape of fish is a terrible thing, as is the arson of whiteboards.

Do I win the "response is nonsensical and irrelevant" game yet?

Suddenly the sanctity of law matters? Since when does the left give a shit about laws? Since never. Just like the end run around voters over gay "marriage". Mob rule.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^quantumushroom:
One day the left will call anti-pedophiles "bigots". It's inevitable.

Yeah, 'cos sex between consenting adults is exactly the same as paedophilia.

Hmmm, interesting idea. Does anyone fear that this is more of a step to direct democracy/mob rule? I mean, look at how memes work, are we going to have meme presidents next?

Hopefully it doesn't start too much of a copycat trend. Mobs rule... pretty much anything they want to.

Too bad society doesn't realize often enough the same principle can be applied to do good as well.