Is she retarded? Its an invasion, stupid!

What is the supposed mixed messaging? What confrontation?

Its an invasion, your hero has started a war, Bob.

Just to prove a point, a white pastor (in similar clothes to Ahmaud) decided to run through the neighborhood carrying a TV on his shoulder for over 2 miles…..big surprise, he had absolutely no problem, no confrontation, no police called. I wonder why.

So, Bob. What about the victim’s right to defend themself from an armed aggressor who had followed them for blocks and was confronting him with weapon cocked and at the ready? He should have shot Rittenhouse in the head when he allegedly pointed, but didn’t shoot his gun, right? That would have solved everything, no charges to be brought, no lawsuit for pedonazi’s parents, no harm, no foul, right? Pure self defense, not even a need to report it, right?

Rittenhouse hunted him for blocks. Chasing him down with an assault rifle as the victim retreated. Then murdered him when he stopped running away. Just want it on the record, you think that’s fine, as is shooting anyone who tries to stop you from leaving the scene of a murder you just committed. Go on. Say it. It’s fine to hunt and kill people you don’t like.
Now…is it fine if the shooter is black and the victim is a baby faced white Republican boy? Pretty sure I know the real answer already.

Trumpist crowds are dangerous and criminal. If they need to get shot up by liberals who get scared by their aggressiveness….. self defense! Aim for the head, guys, and claim you tried a non deadly area to shoot. There’s nothing up there to hurt.

Bob,

"as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night."

This is completely correct; however, it is not a viable defense. You cannot go "looking for trouble" (trust me, I know this one).

Here's a link to a counter-argument, out of fairness sake:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/looking-trouble-framing-and-dignitary-interest-law-self-defense

This part is what will send Baby Rambo to Fed for the next billion years:

"This means that any lawful intent or behavior that may have contributed to the confrontation should not be used to undermine the claim of self-defense."

Please note the "lawful intent or behavior" part. Everything Rittenhouse did was illegal up until the point when he went postal on innocent, if rowdy, protestors. The prosecution is going to nail him to the cross and he won't be coming back in three days.

Let me educate you, John, if that's possible.
Why now?
Because now is when minorities have a voice and some power to back it up. Now is when the populace has finally decided that blatant racism is not just wrong, they should and can do something to counter it.

So ignorant. The same arguments racists have made for my entire lifetime....acknowledging and confronting racism make things worse for the victims. Just utter self serving nonsense from racists who don't like being called out.

Stossel lost his mind in the 80's and became a shill for the right.

In this case, I sympathize because Portland has refused to assist or back any of their police in the riots there. The DA has refused to charge anyone who resists arrest or refuses to disperse after police have been given orders to remove rioters (they are rioters. even the Mayor is now saying to stop calling them protesters and to call them anarchists instead).

Why would anyone want to go out, night after night, and face the same people you arrested the night before doing the same stuff?

The fact also exists that Portland has made massive cuts to the police budget. That has led to time off being cancelled for police, no rotations to move fresh police into the riot situations so the same ones have to deal with the face to face confrontations with no break, and the alternative policing option which was hands off was tabled. "A paramedic and a social worker would drive up offering water, a high-protein snack and, always and especially, conversation, aiming to defuse a situation that could otherwise lead to confrontation and violence. No power to arrest. No coercion."

There are a lot of problems with police, for sure. Portland's government is the driver behind these issues, though. Until they start taking a stand against these anarchist, violent protesters (who are PREDOMINANTLY white), the situation will not get better.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/us/portland-protests.html

I mean she clearly has something wrong with her and she wasn't confrontational or violent.... not cool to see cops acting recklessly because they are (and are protected by) the "law"

I was riding the bus in Paris, and all the streets in Paris were designed for anorexic horses in the 17th century and fuck you for trying to fit your fat-ass 21st century car down them -- much less a huge city bus. So we're squeezing down this street and we come across a moving truck blocking the road. I, as an America, am awaiting horns, swearing and automatic weapon fire. Instead, the driver stops the bus, turns it off, hops off and goes and has a smoke. The people in the bus were being totally French about it: not a murmur of complaint.

Two years later, I was in Canada and some dude cut off a taxi at a light. Out hops the taxi driver to confront the driver of the other car. I start scanning for my exit once pop-pop-pop / muthafuckas drop gets underway. Instead of a spray of bullets, or at least an amusing fist fight, the taxi driver shakes his finger at the guy and gets back in his cab.

I live in mortal fear of getting shot on the road in America over some stupid bullshit (this actually happened to me once: some asshole in Cupertino cranked off three rounds at my car when I accidentally cut him off). It's so amazing to visit civilized countries and see people acting decent and calm to each other.

Why? The constitution doesn't forbid it, and doesn't list the number of seats. Guaranteed if Trump/Republicans had considered it, it would already have been tried.

It could, Republicans threaten civil war every time it looks like they won't get their way on anything these days. Using their own politics of "because we can" would certainly enrage them....good thing they're mostly pussies, afraid of a deer, and obese. I think they'll shit themselves if confronted with an armed enemy....like militia boy did. The difference being in war, the dems shoot back. Side note, who is more patriotic, the one's using the exact same politics they've endured from Republicans, or the one's who threaten to destroy the union and nation (too dumb to realize China and Russia would make us a proxy war then come in to collect the pieces).

All for gladiator games....or giant robot wars....or death races. Especially if the representatives have to fight personally.

It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

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?

Fair enough.

The one point I'd contest is that if someone is to dig their heels in upon receiving (arguably smug) contradictory remarks, I don't think that necessary indicates that they'd vote for Trump no matter what.

When you attack someone's belief that they've had for years and probably decades (i.e., their identity), it is painful and difficult to change one's belief.

A question I like to ask people who say things like what you said is, "When's the last time you admitted being incorrect to a long-held belief?" We've all been confronted with this, but how many times were you able to change your identity?

For instance, "Are you an animal-lover?" and then, the obvious vegan query, "Then why do you eat animals?" There's a pretty strong moral case for not eating animals and I would argue that it's a case that time will show to be both true and moral. I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace.

You could say that I, looking upon meat eaters, feel the same way you feel about Bob, at least in some ways.

The question is, "How does it feel? How easily are you able to change your long-held beliefs when (from my perspective) you're on the wrong side of history?" Do you find yourself recoiling? If someone came at you with not only the question, but says it in a self-congratulatory, condescending way, would you respond to that well? I wouldn't. I'd tell you to fuck off.

Give someone the facts clearly and without prejudice, and you can at least plant an earworm for them to digest later.

If you are vegan, I gotta come up with another example.

My great great grandmother rented out houses in a small town in Louisiana in the early 1900's. One day when checking on her properties she found a chest full of KKK robes in a garage of one of her rentals. Instead of confronting her renters, she dragged the chest to the town square, pulled out the robes, and burned them all.
Her renters moved.

Holy shit is this moron deluded.

I'll never understand why they don't just buy a compound, and make it a club, admission by invitation only. Be separatist all you want, on your own property.

Wait, he thinks you can separate races by the language they speak? You've got to be kidding me, you moron.

Homosexuals are to be killed, just like people who eat shellfish or wear blended fabrics, or mow their lawn on Sunday even once. There are dozens to hundreds of rules that call for stoning, if you're Jewish. Not if you follow Christ. Those instructions come from the old testament, not the new.
If he thinks that doesn't matter, he needs to lynch himself immediately.

Ok, @bobknight33, grand wizard of N Carolina supports Trump, his chapter supports Trump, the grand Dragon supports Trump, the organization supports Trump. Not Biden. Of course, despite hearing it directly from the Klan you'll deny it and say they support Biden, that's called being delusional.

Sorry, you seem to have bought the right wing antifa lie. Where did you get this explanation?

Most people caught shooting or committing arson were dressed as antifa but were in fact right wingers, largely boogaloos boys, who's plan is to commit crimes and blame antifa and BLM in hopes of sparking a civil (and race) war. Nearly 100% of shootings and fully 100% of attempted bombings fit that model.

Because someone wears a black facemask is no indication they support antifa. If they're armed, it's a near guarantee they are anti antifa.

1) the kid came from out of state with armed friends intent on confronting unarmed protesters with guns, you don't do this to protect a random gas station, you do this in hopes of shooting someone.
2) he sure didn't look like he had been sprayed as he ran from the murder he just committed, hands were on his weapon or above his head, not covering his face like a sprayed person.
3) white pedophile? Explain please....how would you know...because he had a 17 year old girlfriend?
4) white guy in a crowd of black men shouting "nigger"?! Doesn't sound right, and I haven't heard it in any videos, but are you saying that excuses the militia boy shooting him and others?
5) gunshot from Antifa?!? Now I know you're duped by right wing media. Antifa is pretty hard to identify unless you're dishonest and just call any black mask wearing person antifa. Also, what evidence is there of this single gunshot from the BLM crowd?
6) he was NOT running to police lines, he was running past them. He didn't stop at them and say "btw, I just shot at least 3 people and maybe more when I just shot into the crowd.", he just walked on by, still carrying the smoking gun.
7) again, where are you getting this info?

8 ) in short, a cowardly murderer who crossed state lines heavily armed who shouldn't have been there but went looking for trouble, started a fight, murdered another man, ran away armed pointing his gun at many uninvolved bystanders, shot and killed those trying to stop an armed murderer (should have emptied that glok if it existed) so he shot one, murdered another and fled the scene, the city, and the state without ever reporting that he had shot at least three people and killed at least two.

I hope he gets sentenced to life in prison, his dad too if they went together, he went heavily armed to a protest hoping to shoot some liberals, he did, now he wants to use the fact that some citizens tried to disarm and citizens arrest him after he shot someone in the head as an excuse for both murders and the other shootings?! And you buy it?!?

I'm so extremely disappointed you would buy such obvious self serving slant where the out of state multiple murderer who travelled armed looking for conflict is the victim.
That's totally asinine. I have much higher expectations for you.

Again, references for these claims please.

Many faults?!? Understatement of the year.
You keep going on and on and on with your brainless parroting of an untrustworthy liar who made an unbelievable claim about Biden like morals matter to you, but when confronted with proof your choice has no morals at all and is actually a pedophile who acted on his urges according to his own words and a repeatedly convicted con man and charity fraud you say, "I support a man with many faults". Clearly morals, ethics, laws, honesty, loyalty, even basic humanity aren't concerns as long as you get to troll some liberals.

Got what done? Not walls. Not trade. Not diplomacy. Not the economy. Not jobs. Not reducing debt. Not national unification.
All I've seen are absolute failures on those promises and the creation of new disasters through incompetence.

Mail in vote failures are actually a symptom of Trump's appointee's direct interference in the post office's ability to deliver mail, removing 10% of national sorting capacity, concentrated in cities that need it most as I understand it, halting all overtime, and changing established delivery methods causing massive backlogs ansd slowdowns of all mail, not just ballots. It's a statistical certainty that veterans have died from not getting their medicine delivered, but you don't care about that either because he's not Hillary.

Odd that you somehow think the national inability to guarantee a free and fair election helps trump look capable of leadership....not sure how that's America being great, sounds more like we're becoming a shit hole country that can't even hold elections, and Trump seems more than happy to help it along instead of trying to fix the problem (although he is trying to "fix" the election by breaking it's processes and suppressing as many voters as possible).