More Republican voter fraud for you....a Republican Florida attorney, Bill Price, held a Facebook event where he instructed the Republican crowd on how exactly to fraudulently claim they were moving to Georgia so they can register to vote there and fraudulently vote. He even offered up his brother's address as one they can use on the forms as their new Georgia address. Repeatedly when asked by audience members if they could really do this he told them yes.
His excuse, it was a joke. His problem, he had actually already fraudulently registered to vote in Georgia using his brothers address as he instructed others to.

Once again, a vote fraud case is discovered that's a Republican scheme. I guess you think Democrats must just be supergenius criminal masterminds since they never get caught but Republicans are caught constantly?

This is fantastic. Thank you for posting.

While he doesn't really get into politics, a while back Destin from Smarter Every Day had a brief discussion on the topic of "political grace." Basically, don't hold people's beliefs against them, as they may come to them with entirely good intentions. A challenging concept to actually practice, particularly when everyone can probably think of many examples of "how the fuck can anyone possibly believe this insane bullshit" that they've personally encountered. The audience members in this video are a solid example of why political grace matters though, as none were villains but some made some truly egregious decisions. We should look for those who preach unity and forgiveness, and be wary of those who sow division.

Congratulations! Your video, Firebird Transition Startles an Audience Member, 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 13 Badge!

Your video, Firebird Transition Startles an Audience Member, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Hollywood big-budget productions have lost all sense of artistry (with few exceptions). The directors all seem to think that audiences are inherently impatient twitch machines and if they hold on a shot for more than two seconds or give us a chance to breathe we'll get up and walk out.

Maybe that's true for some audience members, but you can't create art for the lowest common denominator and expect to produce anything great, or even good.

They wonder why Rotten Tomatoes and audiences are forsaking them? They need to break out of the corporate group-think and embrace artistry again. Yes it means you stink sometimes, but they produce big-budget stinkers anyhow (emoji movie anyone?). At least it would give filmmakers a chance to be great.

Wow, didn't expect to see the comments section explode like this. Seems like some people took what he was saying seriously in spite of the multiple disclaimers he gives the audience that this whole bit is a joke.

I could absolutely see why someone who is an actual Cosby rape victim and takes Jefferies's words seriously would be offended. I could absolutely see someone not being able to transcend their own personal pain in order to see the irony in this bit. But this seems like a wholly different kind of joke from the one Dave Tosh allegedly made in which it was really unclear whether he was joking or not about inviting audience members to rape a woman for daring to heckle him during a set. I don't see any malice in this routine whatsoever.

If you don't find it funny, that's fine. Every joke doesn't have to be funny to every single person on the planet. And if you don't approve of rape jokes, that's fine too. Like Reginald D. Hunter says, go ahead and withhold your laughter. "But take it from the rest of us who did laugh--it was fuckin' funny."

You may not have words, but the youtube link has PLU-ENTY:

www.snuffpuppets.com

Everybody’s born

Everybody cries

Everybody shits

Everybody dies

Conceived in 2012, Everybody is a giant 26.5m human puppet with articulated, detachable and interactive body parts and organs. Ambitious in scope and subject, it is the largest human puppet on the planet and represents the essential humanness of everybody.

Everybody‘s build is experimental; it’s kind of unimaginable, so big and complex but without high-tech design. Its creation is brute, rough, handmade. Everybody is all genders and multi-racial.

Everybody lies down indoors in theatres, outdoors in parks and in open public spaces. In repose, Everybody sleeps, breaths and stirs. Everybody is not just one puppet but a multitude of independent, roaming human body parts and organs; they are characters in their own epic tale of human existence.

Everybody is an immersive experience. Audiences can walk around, sit on, lie against, get inside, and cuddle up to Everybody and all its beautiful body parts. The giant human puppet is viewed in 360 degrees. Everybody, the experience, is a six-hour interactive art installation, or a 90-minute stage show.

The piece begins with the death of the giant human puppet via a brick thrown at Everybody’s head. The head cracks and its brain oozes out. Everybody watches its life flash before its eyes, from birth through life and ultimately death. Everybody’s now independent body parts and organs perform the journey of its life stages. Everybody is in 4 Acts: Everybody’s Born, Everybody Cries, Everybody Shits, Everybody Dies.

Human performers play audience members or passers-by who find themselves transported into, then flung out of, the brain of Everybody. Everybody is made up of: Mouth, Eye, Poo, Foot, Ear, Nose, Brain, Lungs, Baby, Penis, Vagina, Bum, Skin, Heart, Hand, Guts, Breast and Hair. And with guests, Pig and Brick.

Derren Brown has publicly stated something to effect of his goal is to blur the line between what is possible and what has been staged. I forget the exact quote, but when I read it certainly explained some of his more 'extreme' mental 'tricks'. In particular his trick of taking a 'random' crowd and instantly converting them to some religious belief, and taking random normal people and very quickly talking them into performing an armed robbery in short order. Sorry, but using plants in the audience is well enough for me in most magic tricks. When the SOLE magic trick though is controlling or reading the audience member's mind using plants isn't a 'trick' anymore. It's just lying and I no longer count that as interesting or at all impressive.

There isn't just "someone in the crowd with a microphone". There is a person with a microphone INSTANTLY next to whoever he talks to. Maybe they magically appear there. Or maybe there's hundreds of people holding mic's. OR it's an obvious setup and he has people with mics standing near the actor in the audience that he's going to do the act with? hmm.

I'm not expecting actual magic, but I do enjoy magic performances when they are done well. But this obviously fake, edited and staged bullshit sucks imo.

@lucky760 re. "the fake contacting dead relatives thing". What's simpler? That they researched all the audience members social internet profiles or that Brown had plants in the audience? Oldest trick in the book.

Of course, there's someone in the crowd with a microphone. It'd be a pretty crap show if you couldn't hear the audience member.

The mystical surgery was the least interesting part of the show, IMO. some fake blood and some slight of hand, not really that impressive.

but you should have watched to the end... you missed the best part

Once you know how the system works, it's really easy to get in secured areas. Found out about it when for once i wasn't in the crew but as regular audience member, just didn't even think about it and went backstage to toilet.. Remembered half way, hey, i didn't have a pass. I'm an ex-roadie and few years went by as never being on a festival or concert without a backstage pass, it just became a habit (i rarely carried my pass in open anyway as it snags easily when climbing or carrying..). But i did/do look like a roadie, only black t-shirt, black jeans and black everything in my wardrobe (ask any stagehand how can they find their cloths in the dark without a maglite, they'll give you "the look"...).

A lot of it is about your demeanor, you don't act. Acting is pretending and you are spotted mile away. You belong there, you have a job to do: no one asks any questions. If you try to act like you are crew, you will fail. Also, crew members are sober while everyone else is hammered in the audience, so... Hammered crew members will be asked for passes everytime they enter, unless the persons actually do know each other (note, not everyone with a working pass is at the moment working, i was mostly pre/post-show techie so my free-time was the concert..)

I watched the whole thing a few days ago before it was sifted here (but after the short segment that made me decide to seek it out).

Although I didn't necessarily agree with everything he said 100% (a lot I did though), my favorite bit is the very last question from the female audience member -- starts at 1:13:42 or so. Such a fantastic question, and his answer meanders a bit but is also very interesting.

There's a lot of passion and 'in-game' talk in this interview, which suggests a strong artistic sensibility, but perhaps a cavalier grasp on reality (which speaks to the hypomanic of manic-depressive qualities among most artists) -- and this really comes across in the director's story about how Ryan improvisationally and intentionally risked his own life during the filming of one of the scenes...

I saw this film when it came out in the theaters, and I remember being struck by this moment in the film, but also believed that it was "safe" for the actor (with a net or a harness or something). Clearly, this was not the case and we could've lost a great actor in Gosling had there been an accident... Unfortunately, I, as an audience member, didn't know that it was "real," and to that end, perhaps the film didn't fully benefit from extent of his Ryan's risk.

(I also posted this reply on his profile not realising in case that causes any confusion)

My 1st post in that thread was intended purely to inform. Most people I meet who own dogs are painfully unaware of what I was describing and consequently foster futile behaviour and negative emotional outbursts around things their dogs do (the idea that everyone in that thread already knows about this is laughable). This is far from the biggest ill in the world but it's there and I saw an opportunity to present an alternative view of events in the hope that perhaps someone somewhere might learn something (or at least consider an idea rather than just mindlessly following social tradition). Where I learned that idea is irrelevant, it stands or falls on its own merits.

Your response garnered hostility because it was indistinguishable from saying "your spoiling our fun by trying to suggest that the animal might actually be terrified and confused and our fun is more important than someone/thing suffering". You didn't try to challenge what I said, you simply indicated some level of disdain for the fact I was even trying to say something intelligent, or because I didn't mindlessly jump on the "look at the terrified dog" bandwaggon like the rest.

Your damm right it was an emotional response, the attitude you displayed from my POV causes untold suffering throughout the world (and I don't just mean dogs which in the grand scheme of things is relatively harmless). If you read my reply again you'll see that at no point did I suggest you were disagreeing with me, I was insulting you precisely because you didn't even try, you just tried to indite me for trying to raise the level of the conversation. It was that and that alone that garnered my hostility, I'm happy to be proven wrong or even for people to switch off and ignore me but to give me flack just for trying I have little patience for.

You have clearly misunderstood my whole argument against you, if I were to take my own advice then I would either challenge your point (which I did) or accept that I didn't understand enough to try and counter intelligently.

What you did was insult me for just trying to make an intelligent argument. That is where the " little gem of "Fuck You"" came from.

Also it's no good getting on a high horse about me being "over sensitive" when you took the time to jump onto my profile and unleash a boatload of bile yourself. That argument would only have worked if you said it to yourself and got on with your life. But you didn't, you felt you had to give me a piece of your mind just like I did.
I'm not going to call you over sensitive, I'm just going to call you human because that's what you are, just like me ;-).

Edit: for the record that Bill Hicks quote refers to precisely the kind of anti-intellectualism I'm accusing you of. It was because an audience member objected to Bill trying to raise an idea above the trivial self interested level that they felt had been threatened. Or to put it another way Bill had spoiled their fun by trying to make an intelligent point rather than just wallowing in their own unconsidered ignorance. As far as I'm concerned it was entirely appropriate.

I think the major difference is in process not necessarily in the substance.

There is absolutely no way that a person would be allowed to stand up and ask that question at a town-hall-syle-debate in a US presidential race. The campaigns choose who has access to the event; the audience members are required to write down their questions beforehand; and the campaigns choose from among those questions to decide which ones can be asked.