This *promote goes to the videos in the comment section which i really enjoy.

I guess you didn’t read…when he finally put out a personal statement, it was mostly about how upset he was at the right co-opting his song because wrote it about them.

The audience however heard every dog whistle, and when they found out he wasn’t racist and was singing about right wing politicians not Biden they dropped him like a hot potato. I’m afraid you are wrong again, the right definitely heard those dog whistles and are pissed he didn’t intend them.

Easy…when he said he thinks diversity is a strength of America, nearly half his right wing audience said “I’m out” and “try saying that in a small town” and no longer call themselves fans…because they’re racist and thought he was too. You can find thousands in the comments sections where his videos were posted before he spoke out. Here’s 8-10…Just read some…
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/viral-sensation-oliver-anthony-called-a-sellout-for-relatively-benign-“diversity”-comment-he-mad
e-on-fox-news/ar-AA1fG7Ct

I’m afraid it’s just know nothing people who latched onto what they heard as a racist anti welfare, conservative song who suddenly ran for the hills when they realized it and he were in fact anti conservative that suddenly hate this song. I admit I listened to it through “conservative ears” (since it was billed as the new conservative anthem) and I also heard every dog whistle they did, meaning it’s a really poorly worded song since so many got its message completely wrong. Even the Republican debate used it, which he found hilarious since the candidates were exactly who he wrote it about…but they were clueless about the irony.

He should have taken the $8 million, he’s going to fade into obscurity without the political backing he was getting.

So let me ask, now knowing he was talking about conservative politicians not liberals, and knowing he believes in diversity not tribalism…are you still a fan? (I know, you don’t/can’t answer questions). I’m not, despite learning all we now know about his intended message…but I retract my accusation that he MEANT it to be racist or hyper conservative.
Yes, I was w-w-w-wrong about HIM, but not his audience or the message they heard. Not the first or last time, but I can admit it when I’m wrong.

fatefully, saw thing video...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUlvrX4R3jI...while back and it mentions that feature. perhaps it's just there to be there. like "why climb mountains". handy, and why not? comment section mentioned a neat feature also - although might be ingenuity on the commenter's part and not the designer.

Your video, Local news comment sections, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Fortunately, I don't lack respect for fellow sifters and their comments and conversations.

Had I been someone new to VS and wanted to check out the comment section I would have disregarded joining the site simply because of the appearance of an attention whore poster.

I did try to get your attention as a friend to ask you to maybe limit how many "dead" posts you make at once so as to not push recent comments and conversations into oblivion.

When you didn't respond I assumed you were not interested and just continued on.

This isn't so much about the rules as it is about respecting fellow sifters.

I hope you and I can stand on common ground.

https://youtu.be/lp7cc-goVnA

CC: @dag

CC: @lucky760

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?

From the YT comment section:

"I once asked the pilot of a 737 as I was getting on, how often do these things crash?
He casually replied, usually just the once..."

Uh-huh. You are, 100%.

Remember: these people are as armed as they are stupid. Y'wanna know how completely fucking crazy these shitheels are? Go read the comments section for any political story on Zero Hedge or hang out on 4chan's /pol/ for about 10 minutes. That's the surface-level insanity and it just goes downhill for there.

Like I said before, you have exactly two choices: you can leave, or you can stay. If you stay, good fucking luck.

If only someone had answered that question in the comment section...that would be awesome...

Newt, you've already lost.

You didn't lose with Trump in 2016, but with California's Prop 13 in 1978.

The goal of the Neocon movement was to decimate American public education because they knew that an educated population would never vote for the kind of shit they were selling, and because teachers (being educated and all) were a powerful Democratic voting block. Defunding public education was a win/win for them.

It worked beautifully.

The teacher's unions were starved. Public schooling imploded. We went from the most educated populace in the world to the point where 50% of the population can't find their own country on a map.

Then the real screw-job started with the wealth transfer. Unions were busted, jobs were moved overseas. The safety net that kept millions from abject poverty was dissolved ("welfare queens", "food-stamp cheats"). The Middle Class began to evaporate with about 10% climbing up the ladder and the rest being dumped into the street.

For people like me -- people with high-end skills and a college degree -- that shit worked out great. But people who aren't as lucky? Kinda sucks being them. So they got madder and madder. Luckily, there were dark-skinned people that this rage could be directed at. That good ol' American racism? That shit pays dividends if you play it the right way.

Now you have an increasing number of poorly educated people living in poverty with grievances. Hey, guess what -- we have a new tool to focus all that anger and it's called FOX News! They can show you whose dastardly plan it was to keep your poor, white self down on the farm while those FUCKING LIBERALS live it up in the cities!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

See Newt, people like Bob aren't an anomaly, they're the intended end result of a very well-conceived long-term plan by extraordinarily smart people who understood Chomsky, Orwell and Lasker better than you ever will. Bob is now the norm and you are the exception.

Go ahead and vote in Biden or Warren or even Sanders: it doesn't fucking matter because you can't vote out entrenched stupid. No matter who is sitting at 1600 Penn Ave, Bob is sitting in front of his computer, seething and being stupid. He's not going anywhere. He's not going to see things differently and he's damned well not going to get any smarter.

There's a shit-ton of Bobs in this country and their numbers are growing daily. What're you going to do with them? Put 'em in a camp somewhere? Shoot 'em? You cannot have Bobs and the America you want. That leaves you with exactly two choices: you pick up your gun and shoot them, or you pick up your passport and leave. It's one or the other. You might not like the taste of this shit sandwich, but you're going to eat it whether you like it or not.

Also, you think Bob's a little kooky? Go visit 4chan's /pol/, visit whatever 8chan became, visit the comments section of Zero Hedge, read the comments on FOX's YouTube videos: those motherfuckers make Bob look like a goddamn bastion of rationality. Those people, the ones who're yelling at their screens and pounding out febrile screeds? They're armed. They hate you. They want to kill you. The only reason they haven't is because they haven't reached critical mass yet. Give them a couple of years of post-Covid economic collapse and they'll get there.

I'll never forget the most important lesson a Holocaust Survivor taught me: "The smart Jews left first".

Good luck; see you in Lyon.

It's NBC and you Canadians are blocked i'm afraid. I have included a link in the description and comment section for those who are blocked.

If you are going to try to suggest that the United Nations is some kind of hippie vegan promoting organisation, then you will definitely look like the crazy cultist you try to make me out to be.

Sorry champ, it's no longer 1 or 2 doctors promoting a plant-based diet for health, and environment - this video is from the United Nations, and every day, more and more doctors and scientists agree with this view point - you're running out of room to play the "he's a biased vegan" card.


----

And all of your "concerns" are debunked in the comments of your links already, so I have nothing to add.

----

I've also destroyed the credibility of your links in my other video comment section.

I don't know if you've seen the sort of thing I'm talking about, but the usual formula is you see a video with a title like "Bully picks on the wrong guy" or something, then you watch the video and what you see is someone getting their head kicked in, and you feel good. Then you have an entire comment section with "That's what you get for being a bully" etc. But nothing in the video actually shows him being a bully.

So if the title had been "Man is attacked completely unprovoked and suffers life changing injuries" the judgement would be very different. Maybe you just watched a crime and enjoyed it.

I find it really strange that people will argue back and forward about the details of the content of the video, but never question the framing. It's "a given" he was a bully etc. because some text at the top said so, we just discuss whether it was appropriate.

So in this video, maybe the situation was exactly as described, but I don't know what information I'd use to get to that conclusion. And nobody in the comment section really seems to be trying.

Why don't we see him asking for his grade to be marked up? Wouldn't that be the money shot here? Kid makes outrageous request, which for some reason I edited out, then behaved terribly... maybe they didn't get their phone out in time... who knows? Not me.

This is not one of those 'instant karma' videos I mean, I'm just drawing the parallel with the context free clip, followed by collective righteous feeling and judgement.

I don't know if you've seen the sort of thing I'm talking about, but the usual formula is you see a video with a title like "Bully picks on the wrong guy" or something, then you watch the video and what you see is someone getting their head kicked in, and you feel good. Then you have an entire comment section with "That's what you get for being a bully" etc. But nothing in the video actually shows him being a bully.

So if the title had been "Man is attacked completely unprovoked and suffers life changing injuries" the judgement would be very different. Maybe you just watched a crime and enjoyed it.

I find it really strange that people will argue back and forward about the details of the content of the video, but never question the framing. It's "a given" he was a bully etc. because some text at the top said so.

So in this video, maybe the situation was exactly as described, but I don't know what information I'd use to get to that conclusion. And nobody in the comment section really seems to be trying.

Why don't we see him asking for his grade to be marked up? Wouldn't that be the money shot here? Kid makes outrageous request, which for some reason I edited out, then behaved terribly... maybe they didn't get their phone out in time... who knows? Not me.