That escalated quickly...

Your video, That escalated quickly, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

As a former employee under both Jobs and Cook, I can tell you exactly what is wrong with Apple.

When I started with Apple, every thing we were concerned with was innovating. What could we come up with next? Sure, there were plenty of misses, but when we hit, we hit big. It was ingrained in the culture of the company. Managers wanted creative people, people who might not have been the best worker bee, but that could come up with new concepts easily. Sometimes corporate rules were broken, but if you could show that you were actively working towards something new, then you were OK.

Fast forward to when Cook started running the show, Steve was still alive, but had taken a backseat really. Metrics became a thing. Performance became a watchword. Managers didn't want creative thought, they wanted people who would put their nose to the grindstone and only work on things that headquarters suggested. Apple was no longer worried about innovating, they were concerned with 'maintaining'.

Two examples which might help illustrate further:

1. One of the guys I was working with was constantly screwing around in any free moment with iMovie. He was annoyed at how slow it was in rendering, which at the time was done on the CPU power. Did some of his regular work suffer, yeah. But he was praised because his concepts helped to shift some of the processing to the GPU and allow real time effects. This functionality made iMovie HD 6 amazing to work with.

2. In a different section of the company, the support side, a new manager improved call times, customer service stats, customer satisfaction, and drastically cut down on escalations. However, his team was considered to be:

a. making the other teams look bad

and

b. abusing the use of customer satisfaction tools, like giving a free iPod shuffle (which literally costs a few dollars to make) to extremely upset customers.

Now they were allowed to do all of these things, no rules were being broken. But Cook was mostly in charge by that point and he was more concerned with every damn penny. So, soon after this team blew all the other teams away for the 3rd month in a row, the new manager was demoted and the team was broken up, to be integrated into other teams willy-nilly.

Doing smart things was no longer the 'thing'. Toeing the line was. Until that changes, nothing is going to get better for Apple. I know I personally left due to stress and health issues from the extreme pressure that Cook kept sending downstream on us worker bees. My job, which I had loved, literally destroyed my health over a year.

Fighting on the street isn't even comparable to MMA. Not to take away from the hardness of any MMA fighter, but MMA is a sport. There are rules, and it's a safe environment (as safe as can be considering what happens in the octagon). You don't have to worry about the other guy poking your eye out or biting you, you probably won't die, etc.

The best thing for self defense is to be able to identify a dangerous situation, and get away from it using any means necessary, before it escalates. Getting into your car and driving away is the best thing you can do.

The other part of it is not looking like a victim, it's a body language thing.

And in these cases, Aikido is as good as any other martial art.


Having said that I'd still love to see someone use Aikido in an MMA match just for entertainment, because the only videos I've ever seen are ones like this, where the partner is going with the flow to avoid injury.


Actually now that I think about it, are you allowed to dislocate/break joints in MMA? Because the damage is likely to be permanent.

Good and interesting stuff in there.

I think Sharpe is right that this escalation happened for a pretty silly reason (known blowhard and mouth-runner Trump runs his mouth, news at 11), and the NFL vs Trump skirmish detracts from the root issue that Kaepernick was trying to bring attention to a year ago.

On the other hand, I kinda agree with the other guy that maybe bringing attention to that skirmish will also bring attention to the original issue, so maybe it is a net good thing.

Yeah, the owners aren't going to give a fuck until shit lands on their doorstep. Yeah, calling people a "son of a bitch" rates at about a 2 on the "Trump just said what?!" scale. Sharpe's cynicism about how we got here makes a lot of sense.

I didn't care about Kaepernick sitting for the anthem a year ago enough to pay attention. I wasn't against it. I didn't think the was trying to "disrespect" the flag / soldiers / country / whatever, but I wouldn't have really cared if he was. Aren't people allowed to be anti-war? Opposed to mindless nationalism?


Fast forward to today. The billionaires that Sharpe mentioned who donated big sums to Trump's campaign finally get upset when his shit lands on their door. His (comparably tame) "Twitter attacks" on the NFL kick off a dog-and-pony show that may possibly have been cunningly intended to distract from the much more weighty stuff that Kaepernick was trying to draw attention to in the first place, but I seriously doubt that Trump is that clever.

However, something good did come of it: I went from "meh" to paying attention. I went back and listened to Kaepernick's interview about why he was sitting for the anthem from a year ago (embed below), which I didn't watch at the time. I heard a rational, honest, and eloquent young man calmly and clearly explain what he was doing and why he was doing it.

He saw injustice, and wanted to do something about it. He had access to a soapbox that very very few of the people on the receiving end of that injustice have. So, he made up his own mind to do something to try to get conversations started. He was surprised and confused that anyone would see his actions as disrespectful towards soldiers / military, and was later persuaded (by a Navy SEAL) to kneel as opposed to sit for the anthem in an effort to make that more clear.

He seemed aware that he can only control what he does -- not how people will try to spin it, and not how people may react to it. And he also clearly accepted that his actions could have consequences, and that he didn't want to rope anybody else in to acting with him unless they were prepared to accept those consequences also.

So, yeah. Some good came of this recent escalation, even if it came for the wrong reasons. Because some of the people that get drawn in to the dog-and-pony show might decide that they care enough to go back and take a deeper look at it, like I did. And when they look deeper, they're going to see Trump's standard, everyday twitter nonsense on one side compared to a lot of more rational stuff like, say, perhaps actually listening to words of the person that got the ball rolling on the other side (Kaepernick, and others). I like the way that scale balances out.

Wow that escalated quickly which was no surprise to my black friend, but a cop calming down and letting someone drive off who doesn't have any ID did not compute on his operating system.

As an adjunct to this video, there is this interview with 2 BLM activists that is part of the documentary.

The awful irony is that in the documentary, Daryl has far more reasoned and polite conversations with dyed in the wool white supremacists than he does with fellow members of his race.

After the two interviewees walk out, a 3rd BLM member steps in and launches an escalating tirade, but storms out without even bothering to listen to a different viewpoint.

This is what I think is the issue. When people who proclaim that black lives matter can't even sit there and listen to the opinion of a black man, what's the fucking point?

Perhaps the most poignant part of this video is the last minute (from 10:00 onwards).

(speaking about one of the BLM members)

"He was very definite that white people could not change. How is he going to advance any agenda in this country, as diverse as it is?"

Really. Can you name a number of Nazi marches that didn't end in violence then? I can't.
Nothing was traded, the right still wears their hoods....more than the left wears black, btw. The left has never courted these people, and doesn't excuse them. The right can't say the same about Nazis and the KKK.

No, sorry, they're confused kids. Fascism is not liberal...not extreme liberal either. They might think, because their goals are quasi-liberal, that makes them liberals, but their methods are totally antithetical to liberal ideals.

Liberal and Democratic leaders have denounced them repeatedly. Just because Fox tells you they embrace them doesn't make it true.

Huh? Leaders calling the cops doesn't help? Really. It's seemed to disband them in the past without campus burnings...what are you talking about? How do you arrest them without calling the cops? What?! The alternative? Just let the nazis/fascists and the antifascist fascists fight in public.

So, there you go, again, the right escalates the violence to the next level, murder, and you blame the left. Typical Bob.

Not that any of this is acceptable, but it's funny how your video omits the part where the armed and armored (clubs, helmets and full body pads) right wingers violently pushed into the counter protest crowd, starting the violence you now decry, and that this video edits to look one sided.

At this point, it's more than probable that nothing will get Trump reelected, but if the right is successful painting these anarchist asshats as liberals, and by extension liberals as these asshats, it could get another Trump like feculent demagogue elected.
That's why I think it's important to denounce them (antifa) at every opportunity. Fascists against fascism are still fascists, just incredibly stupid ones. They don't stand for what I think the left is about, and I certainly don't stand with them.

I agree, horrifyingly, this is apparently escalating towards gunplay. I'm not at all sure which side will shoot first. Don't fool yourself into thinking the left and the anarchists don't have guns too, though, or that totally non political citizens won't take up arms against rampaging Nazis and fascists (hopefully fascists left and right). Just something to consider when you're standing next to one hoping a gunfight breaks out.

@Jinx -- Whether in "meatspace" or on the internet, I think the difference is engaging with others vs being in the echo chamber.

A lot of "engaging" with others is going to be negative. Picket line meets picket line has about as much chance of being productive as reading the comments on a controversial YouTube video.

But even if the majority of the "engagement" is that, there are going to be some patient people who connect in a positive enough way to actually enlighten and persuade. Like the former-WBC lady's new husband.

And while that positive engagement seems to have the best shot at redeeming those that can be redeemed, it also might be the best way to show the true colors of those beyond redemption. The skinhead leader guy got maced by counter-protesters twice. That gives him a semi-legitimate provocation to respond in kind or with escalating violence (bloody knuckles, broken bones, whatever). But if he isn't provided with any such provocation and still resorts to violence, people can truly see his "idealogy" for what it is.

Hence Rosa Parks responding to the bus driver in Montgomery:
Driver - "If you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested."
Parks - "You may do that."


If I was there in Charlottesville in the heat of the moment, face to face with that kind of hate and bigotry, I'd have been one of the people chanting "fuck off nazis". I'd have cheered when somebody on "my side" maced chief-skinhead in the face, if I hadn't done it myself. ...But I recognize that we could sure use more people that react like Rosa Parks did, and less like I would have.

was it brave for him to drive his motorcycle over a cliff at 65?

was it a heroic act for that kid to help the old guy down the escalator? personally I thought that one was borderline racist

If he fell into the escalator machinery, he could be seriously injured, missing parts, or dead.