Aw. :~( I remember she was having budget issues.

That was truly fucking awful -- ain't we suffered enough in 2020 already?!
(upvoted anyway)

I'd like to see how that robot does while wearing a pair of those god awful bowling shoes.

From my golfing experience I am pretty sure which golfer type Trump is. The type that uses every obscure local rule to gain an advantage, is willing to ignore any rule to help himself, puts down opponents at any opportunity and is ungracious in defeat. The type you never want to play against. Put down money to play him? Why?

Peyton Manning enjoys being on the winning team. Good for him.

Dana Quigley confirms the POTUS can actually hit a ball which does not surprise me as I wrote in the description. I am not saying Trump cant play, I just believe he has the self-discipline (and education) of a six-year-old.

John Daly says Bill Clinton is worse? How does that make Trump not awful? Vote for Trump, he cheats less than Bill Clinton!

"mediocre singing, mediocre playing / solos, awful overly distorted trebly tone"

You need the right bait to attract the fish you want to catch. You're just not the right fish for that bait.

"The song remains the same." - Led Zeppelin

I didn't like that one bit - mediocre singing, mediocre playing / solos, awful overly distorted trebly tone...yuck. In my opinion, so much better talent out there, both past and present.

How about you actually post a video of something you think is good so we can tell you how awful it really is or are you just a shit-stirrer?

That's people who are still willing to call themselves Republicans. That number has dropped sharply in the last 45 months.

My take is it's for people who were Republicans before the party lost it's mind. I know many who say they didn't leave the Republican party, it left them. They need to be reminded of how God awful Trump is on every topic so they can palate voting for a Democrat, even a middle of the road Democrat like Biden is hard for them to swallow, but better than Trump.

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

Thanks to BSR for having this posted. This is the sort of stuff that needs to get more airtime and eyeballs.

I think that pairs to the worst crime the left has been involved in related to the dumpster fire that is today. The entire notion of de-platforming or silencing 'offensive' speech, and that Universities have if anything been leading the way. Universities need to instead be having guys like the one here getting their views known more broadly, and then point out loudly what is considered bad and dangerous about them. More importantly, to also point out how closely it aligns with Trump and his rallying cries.

When the left could have been discrediting this filth, they have instead been accomplishing the opposite by actively rallying moderates to 'defend' the freedom of speech of these guys.

The passive majority has been watching for a long time as advocates on the left have used force and violence to disrupt speech they don't like. Now, cities are burning and despite it being for entirely other reasons, you have a lot of middle america only seeing the same angry mob of leftists at the same stuff again as before. Demand everyone do things their way or violence will be used. The worst/scariest thing to me is the Dems still seem confused by how people aren't flocking to them in the face of Trumps malice. They somehow can not fathom that there are an awful lot of right leaning people honestly worried that their only choice is between a Trump they loath in most everyway, but on the other side and angry mob of leftists willing to use violence on anyone that doesn't conform. If Trump wins the next election I'll be sickened, but also entirely unsurprised.

assuredly the most continuous felonious administration in our lifetime.

felons before and most likely felons after.

like really awful pancake dough. badness throughout the batter. criminally consistent.

@newtboy
Do you honestly believe a BLM sign holder at a clan March would be treated better? What about at a Trump rally? If you claim to think either case wouldn't end in hospitalization, you're not being honest.

Not only did I never claim that, I have trouble figuring why you think I would? My second sentence again:"My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies."

I oppose meeting speech with force excepting when that speech is being used to promote violence or harm, I'm also willing to allow that 'speech' can also amount to being disruptive or harassment like your notion of bringing inappropriate material to a kids park, or using a megaphone inches from someone's face.

I kind of thought on that point we'd find agreement, or at least understanding and agree to disagree?

Opening a new point from you're statement:He was the instigator. His sign amounts to "you will not silence our Nazi voice" at a rally pushing to silence their Nazi voice in their neighborhood.

I've read a few of the links you provided, and looked up a few articles on the gallery and I'm having troubles with the characterization. Do you have a good specific link that more clearly focuses on the nazi support from the gallery? The reading I've done seems to describe an art gallery, that allowed exhibits and talks from far-right and at least arguably fascist speakers on possibly a few occasions. You seem to talk like it was operating openly as a neo-nazi HQ.

So, what I've looked up so far, it does look an awful lot like a gallery pulled in speakers that people disliked, so they rallied to shut down the gallery as punishment for allowing wrong-think to be spoken. Then when guys like the one in the video came to defend free-speech, they too were classed as nazi's and lumped in as enemies too. Last article I found by the guy in video, so maybe he's lying, but other articles I've found also suggest that the gallery operated more generally rather than being an explicitly alt-right hub:
https://medium.com/@dctvbot/i-regret-nothing-c05401636032

I openly admit I’m plenty ignorant on the background to all this.

My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies. You had a very large crowd around him not content to shout him down, but intent on using force to chase him off and trying to again use force to take his sign from him. Thats over the line and I don’t care who is doing the pushing or what the sign actually says. As above, if the sign or message is itself a promotion of violence, then its the police and court system you want to pull in, not the mob or vigilantism.

The little background I read from your links though suggests the large crowd had been there repeatedly with the same purpose of getting the gallery/HQ shutdown. Seems awful likely to me guy with sign was then standing outside said gallery and all the more aught have the right to stand near it with a simple sign, without being dismissed as the one ‘invading’ or stealing the protestors platform. To be honest most of the discussion about giving or blocking platforms reeks to me of just renaming stuff so folks can duck the well worn arguments in support of free speech.

Interesting, but not surprising.

Fireworks (and bbqs) took LA air from poisonous to deadly on the fourth. It was already pretty ruined on the third. Last I read living there was like being a heavy smoker on the lungs. As I recall, the LA basin air quality was the main reason California enacted our own emission standards decades ago. That was my point, not that fireworks don't pollute, but that LA air quality is legendarily awful.