search results matching tag: defuse

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (18)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (8)     Comments (131)   

Land of Mine Trailer

newtboy says...

Hilarious….you need to ask why someone doesn’t like nazis?…but who said to kill them all? Wasn’t me.
Are you under the mistaken assumption that being a mine defuser is a death sentence, and they all died? Is that what happened in the movie? This was a German plan to have them earn their freedom and not starve to death in POW camps.

I can’t abide Nazis. If you feel the urge to defend nazis, that’s on you, buddy.

So, you’re just trolling then….or are you so dense you don’t see a difference between captive invading murderous soldiers who are around 16 and who were committing a genocide and non combatant children who are 10 and not indoctrinated into violent expansionist racist and murderous fascism? Nazi youth aren’t cub scouts….Jojo Rabbit wasn’t a historically accurate documentary.

If we had not abandoned Vietnam and our soldiers were captured instead, our soldiers there should have been forced to demine Vietnam and Cambodia, including the 15 year olds (the idea that non combatant children be sent there is brain numbingly ludicrous)(Dan Bullock (December 21, 1953 – June 7, 1969) was a United States Marine and the youngest U.S. serviceman killed in action during the Vietnam War, dying at the age of 15. Yes, we use youth soldiers too.).

The mines we left all over those countries have killed and maimed numerous generations, tens of thousands, and continue to do so to this day, and if I’m not mistaken, many POWs did clear mines during captivity. Leaving an active minefield on foreign soil should be a war crime if it isn’t already. It’s definitely targeting the civilian population once the war is over.

Wow. Remind me to never be around your family then. Everyone in my family knew it was wrong to invade and murder our neighbors because we like their stuff and land, and wrong to try to exterminate an entire ethnicity by the time we were 6. If you didn’t know that by 14, you have serious issues. Nazis exterminated the mentally feeble.

The young republicans aren’t a murderous group exterminating Jews, blacks, gays, and anyone not Republican…nazis were. If the young republicans were a murderous group like the nazis, any member should get the death penalty, even the murdering racist 15 year olds….young adults kill just as thoroughly as 35 year olds, their victims were just as terrified and are now just as dead.

The nazis didn’t have a tiny majority through which they controlled German politics, they had a monopoly. Another false equivelent. Christ on a cracker. If Trump had won in 2020, and used the Jan 6 attack on congress as a false pretext to outlaw any opposition to Republicans, taking over completely through violence and intimidation and held and consolidated power for nearly a decade you would be almost there. Holy Ghost on toast!

Are you shitting me. You equate these things, refusing vaccines, creating bad state laws disenfranchising voters, to accepting and participating in genocide. Just fucking wow, buddy. Stretch much? Almighty God on cod!

Old enough to murder, and you do it, you’re an adult. I don’t give a flying fuck if you’re 9. If you know what your doing when you put that gun to a Jews head and say “your children are next, you fucking kike” or a similar slur then pull the trigger, you just became an adult and eligible for the death penalty. We try 12 year olds as adults, but you would shield murderous hitler youth, many of whom turned in their own parents for liquidation, from responsibility from committing genocide among other disgusting atrocities. These kids aren’t Jojo Rabbit. Mother Mary with her cherry!

Besides…as I informed you, it was the German commander who had the idea and gave the order. At least get mad at the right nation.

You said “ but just can't get my head around putting children in a minefield. no matter the justification. that'd be just as bad as anything the nazis could ever do: lose any sense of humanity.”
1) you have lost your ever loving mind if you think a little danger is as bad as anything the nazis could ever do….you simply have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. The atrocities the nazis committed make clearing a minefield they layed look like a nice summer job with a friendly and generous boss by comparison. Try abasination, sewing twins together, seeing how long people can live without skin, raping people to death, melting people alive in acids, starving babies, stomping babies, gassing entire populations, etc. you really climbed so far up on that high horse you can’t see reality anymore. Sweet Zombie Jesus!
2) it was something the nazis did. This was a nazi plan from a nazi officer. Get it straight. The nazis did this, not the allies. That’s what I mean by learn the history instead of getting mad over a story….you are upset over fiction….and defending nazis in your outrage over nothing.

You have a problem. Your position is that nazis shouldn’t have to take any responsibility for their actions…apparently going so far as excusing college age men for fascist, racist genocide because you know some people that age who made some mistakes. (I say that proves my point that just as being older doesn’t mean making better decisions, being younger doesn’t mean you can’t make good decisions. I learned to not hurt other people except in defense in preschool.)

I say if you pick up that gun and march, you’re a soldier and responsible for your actions. If you kill, you’re a killer, no matter your age.

luxintenebris said:

what's beef w/the Hilter youth?

can't abide w/the kill all the baby adolphs vibe. seems extreme. even by WWII standards. just the bare fact that children were used to defuse bombs isn't what one would call kosher. if that was the right of the winning side, one hell of a lot of bombs lying around in Laos and Vietnam - what about sending our Boy Scouts over to take care of the US mess they left?

anyway - not meaning to be mean - at 14 most are not at the level of being correctly called 'idiots'. if you don't know - you just f'n' don't know!

christ on a cracker...know folks who now question what they were thinking joining the Young Republicans - - - AND THEY WERE OF COLLEGE AGE!!!

what is freaky is the line "If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power."

2016 mean anything? and that's the MINORITY of Americans!

christ on a cracker...what's the situation on the COVID vaccines? on voting bills? on any f'n' bill or issue in this land? the MINORITY is having their day keeping the rest in the dark.
[2nd Amendment but screw the other 26...or 24...cause 21 cancels 18 = 0]

as you said "History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes"
as he said, "And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated."
but just can't get my head around putting children in a minefield. no matter the justification. that'd be just as bad as anything the nazis could ever do: lose any sense of humanity.

Land of Mine Trailer

luxintenebris says...

what's beef w/the Hilter youth?

can't abide w/the kill all the baby adolphs vibe. seems extreme. even by WWII standards. just the bare fact that children were used to defuse bombs isn't what one would call kosher. if that was the right of the winning side, one hell of a lot of bombs lying around in Laos and Vietnam - what about sending our Boy Scouts over to take care of the US mess they left?

anyway - not meaning to be mean - at 14 most are not at the level of being correctly called 'idiots'. if you don't know - you just f'n' don't know!

christ on a cracker...know folks who now question what they were thinking joining the Young Republicans - - - AND THEY WERE OF COLLEGE AGE!!!

what is freaky is the line "If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power."

2016 mean anything? and that's the MINORITY of Americans!

christ on a cracker...what's the situation on the COVID vaccines? on voting bills? on any f'n' bill or issue in this land? the MINORITY is having their day keeping the rest in the dark.
[2nd Amendment but screw the other 26...or 24...cause 21 cancels 18 = 0]

as you said "History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes"
as he said, "And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated."
but just can't get my head around putting children in a minefield. no matter the justification. that'd be just as bad as anything the nazis could ever do: lose any sense of humanity.

newtboy said:

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

Land of Mine Trailer

newtboy says...

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

psycop said:

These boys neither chose the age of conscription nor to go to war. Given their age and the time in the war, they would have been forcably made to fight. If you had the misfortune to be born then and there, thier fate could be yours.

Being in the German army did not imply being a Nazi, the majority of the German population were victims as well, pointlessly lead to slaughter by monsters.

Those of them that would have survived the fighting ended up here. They didn't feed them. They worked until they died. They expected them to die. They wanted them to die.

The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1929 making this an official war crime if that's important to you. I'd say the law does not define ethics, and I'd be happy to say this is wrong regardless of the treaty.

As for alternatives for mine clearance. I'm not a military expert, but I believe there are techniques, equipment, tools or vehicles that can be used to reduce the risk to operators. Frankly it's besides the point. Just because someone cannot think of a solution they prefer over running a death camp, does not mean they are not free to do so.

If you have the time, I'd recommend watching the film. It's excellent. And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated.

Portland's Rapid Response Team Quits Over Accountability

Mordhaus says...

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

The Walk.

luxintenebris jokingly says...

?

it's like you are trying to defuse a bomb while believing it doesn't matter if you cut the red or blue wire - it's gonna blow!

given up w/o looking at the red wire marked 'cut here'.

will say, rationalizing waiting around until you get your dream date...how long do you plan on living?

scheherazade said:

As a liberal (without TDS), I would prefer Trump just stay another 4, and we get a real Democratic candidate.

The good thing about Trump is that there is so much gridlock that neither party has the ability to pass any laws. Shit just coasts along without much change.

If Democrats win now, while TDS is in full swing, any law they pass will be an ideological (non-technocratic) over-correction.

I get that he's "the democratic party's man", but FFS, take things seriously for a change. Yang, Tulsi, Bern', all better candidates by far. But since they're not obedient party dogs I guess they're unsuitable for the job...

I mean, what's the logic? Hey, people are dumb enough to vote for a narcissist, so they must also be dumb enough to vote for someone brain damaged? Are they trying to double down on last election?

Really? This guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FCGLidQN6M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-GoeFGyIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nl1b1rngXU#t=11m1s

I mean, his youtube campaign ad has him stumbling around for words. If that train wreck is what his own campaign put out, how bad were his other takes for them to say 'all right, this is the best we're gonna get' ?

If there ever was a campaign that embodied "party over country", this is it.

-scheherazade

How to Slow Aging (and even reverse it)

Kid Physically Threatens Teacher For Not Rounding His Grade

newtboy says...

I don't understand yours....it was your question.

You asked when violence is deserved, I answered.
You countered that resorting to violence might not work out as well as I think, I haven't considered multiple variables before jumping into violence, I'm possibly overconfident, not trying to defuse instead of exacerbate, being irresponsible, and making a fool of myself by jumping into a violent response, but that isn't what I said as that's not the question you asked.

You asked when violence is deserved, not when it's advised....you understand the difference, right? My answer was to that question, not to one that remains unasked.
Please re-read your question.

BSR said:

I don't understand your confusion.

Kid Physically Threatens Teacher For Not Rounding His Grade

BSR says...

I agree when someone endangers you or others. But I look at it as a first aid response. Not a challenge. Remove the danger from the victim. If that's not possible, remove the victim from the danger.

The second part is kind of iffy. No matter how confident you may be, and go beyond defusing a scene then proceed to administer punishment, you may be the one that fails prematurely and could end up with you, being the only defense, useless. Sometimes unexpected things happen and to keep a situation ongoing needlessly would be irresponsible. Don't fool yourself thinking you will be victorious. There are many things to defend yourself against without creating more.

Don't be a victim of your hand. It's really embarrassing.

When you want to pummel someone remember, SAFETY FIRST. Safety glasses and a hard hat.

newtboy said:

Any time someone else touches you in anger or endangers you or those you are responsible for first.

Imo, when he pushed the teacher, he gave that teacher permission to take him out...and I'll go ahead and say this bullshit about responding with equal force is just that, bullshit. Once you start a fight by touching someone, you remove any right you had to complain that they're better at fighting and broke all your teeth out. Should've thought about that before putting your hands on someone else thinking you would come out victorious.

MAGA Catholic Kids Mock Native Veteran's Ceremony

newtboy says...

Duh.

Edit: of the 3 groups, which had permits....natives
Of the 3 groups, which was still performing closing ceremonies of a permitted March...natives.
Of the 3 groups, which refrained from insulting the other two....natives.
Of the 3 groups, which tried to defuse rather than escalate....natives.

But the native elder calmly trying to defuse the escalating situation is the one in the wrong in your opinion.


The inevitable attack was against the Israelites, because the kids were getting irate, taking off their clothes, jumping around like madmen, and screaming insults at the Israelites. Before he came in drumming, it sure looked like violence was likely.

I watched it as many times as I'm going to, which was many, and when the elder stops there's plenty of room between everyone, then the kids move closer from every direction.

Look, you can bend over backwards to pretend the kids weren't also instigating, or being rude, or racist, but I must admit I'm floored people can see a gang of white kids gleefully tomahawk chopping and hi-ya-hi-ya-ing undeniably derisively at a native elder (veteran, but who knew that there) while smirking inches from his face as he's surrounded by their jeering buddies and instead of admitting what they see with their own eyes and hear with their ears, pretend the irate screaming kids were being respectful angels not disrespectful racist assholes. I see and hear what's on the video, you find excuses for it and pretend you don't hear racism in their racist taunting.

I'm most floored chaperones on a church field trip didn't just let the kids respond to the provocation of the Israelites (which is moronic and exactly what they wanted), they encouraged it and did nothing when it turned racist against the elder, just egged them on more. So much for Christ's teachings....fuck what he said if someone's teasing you, right? Christ said take an eye for an eye....oh wait, no he didn't.

bcglorf said:

@newtboy,

missed your reply, you need to check the video again as you clearly didn't watch what I'm watching.
You said:
"I disagree 100%. Sane people did this to stop the rapidly escalating anger between the kids and (disgusting) black Israelites before the kids attacked the Israelites, which seemed inevitable because no one was controlling the kids (or the small group of Black Israelites) and the kids were getting more and more rowdy."
At 1:09 the Black Israelites are making fun of the kids specifically because they are "keeping their distance". At 1:11 the kids are presumably standing/jumping doing one of their school chants, moving no closer to the black Israelites. At 1:12 after the chant, the kids all sit down. After the kids have been not only 'keeping their distance', but sitting down now for a minute is when Nathan Phillips comes in to 'de-escalate' things. You can not honestly paint that as looking like an 'inevitable attack' was coming from the kids. The reality is the kids were staying back, and sitting down while the Black Israelite adults continued trying unsuccessfully to escalate things.

You later said:
"and note smirk boy is not there, he gets into the stationary elders face later. "

If you look at 1:13, smirk boy is 3 rows back from the elder. If you watch till 1:14 you notice that the camera man isn't moving, but Phillips gets further and further away because is walking slowly into the crowd of students. The students don't so much surround him, they make way as he invades their personal space until they move until about 1:15. If you watch 1:15, the camera is the same place as it was back at 1:11, the kids are at the same distance from the camera and the same location on the stairs, but now you can't even see Phillips because he's so far into the group.

I gotta admit, I'm a little floored you can come away still seeing what you want to see...

MAGA Catholic Kids Mock Native Veteran's Ceremony

newtboy says...

Yes, he gets between them, and the kids then close in and surround him....in a group.....hi-ya-hi-ya-ing, woo-boo-boo-boo-boo-ing and tomahawk chopping.
He is also on multiple video interviews saying they did block his ceremony, which was permitted, and it's undeniable that the kids and black Israelites interrupted the ceremony that started at the reflecting pool and was supposed to end at the top of the steps the kids took over. That said, he didn't get between the other two groups to continue the closing ceremony, he did it to separate and distract them and instead became the target for both groups.

I disagree 100%. Sane people did this to stop the rapidly escalating anger between the kids and (disgusting) black Israelites before the kids attacked the Israelites, which seemed inevitable because no one was controlling the kids (or the small group of Black Israelites) and the kids were getting more and more rowdy. A few insane people say the kids weren't being racist or insulting, and that's absolutely asinine and completely divorced from reality. They were intentionally insultingly racist....and towards a different group than the group that insulted them.

Watched the long version from 1:11-3:11, no shoving into the kids, no Phillips, that's the black Israelites screaming their nonsense at natives, disrupting their ceremony.
So I checked 1:11:00-1:13:00....when he comes in.....and note smirk boy is not there, he gets into the stationary elders face later. It's bears mentioning that his tactics worked too, he instantly calmed the situation and diverted the hopping mad boy's attention from attacking the Israelites to deriding the natives. Even the Israelites are impressed. Not sure what point you thought that makes, but it's not yours.

He was absolutely not aggressive in the least, and did not push or even touch a single person that I saw, and stopped in front of the kids who quickly surround him. Why are you lying?

Smirk boy might have an argument if he was alone, but smirking in the man's face for nearly 10 minutes while hundreds of your friends dance around you shouting insults and laughing derisively is not an attempt to defuse, it's a clear and obvious power play he thought he won until the shit storm hit....now he's trying to claim he wasn't being disrespectful....I call bullshit. He knew exactly what he was doing, and expected to be big man on campus for it....probably is. Do you think he would find it respectful if a black kid smirked inches from his mother's face as she performed (or any time) while his friends taunted her incessantly? Doubt it.

The next March for life is probably going to end with thousands of blm activists, possibly claiming they were just insulted by white supremacists, so any disruptions, insults, or rudeness towards the anti choice March will be ignored. Turnabout is fair play, and rapid escalation is the MO of this century.

Too bad the adults in the church group decided to egg the kids on rather than turn the other cheek. No surprise, the school and republicans claim the kids did nothing at all wrong. 100% certain they would think it's wrong if aimed at them, or done by non white non Christians, or even white kids in Hillary hats.

Worst for these kids, they are now poster children FOR PRO abortion groups.....their new commercial could be any portion of these videos captioned "your unwanted kid could be one like these, with their public actions drawing death threats, property threats, and unending verbal assault to your family and communities".

So much for helping their cause by attending the march. All they've done is expose the utter disrespect Christians accept from their children towards others, even defend. My parents would have skinned me alive and offered the pelt as contrition if I acted that way towards an adult, and we don't believe in Jebus.

bcglorf said:

Did you check out the summary of the video evidence posted by eric3579? Or in the nearly 2 hr one I linked skip to 1:11 and check out the interaction between the drummer and the kids.

The kids stay in their group, and the drummer and his followers wade right into them, with lots of room to go around. Phillips is on audio recording declaring that he did NOT feel that he was blocked from any closing ceremony, but that he wanted to go in and separate the kids from the black Israelites to 'descalate' the situation. Eric3579's video again has Phillips audio statement about what he was doing, listen to that and then watch the longer video for a minute or two at 1:11 when Phillips wades in. He's clearly lying, he went in aggressively pushing into the middle of the crowd of kids, hardly what any sane person wanting to deescalate the situation would do.

Georgia Cop On Tape Telling Woman We Only Kill Black People

Payback says...

I like that he's retiring over this, even if he isn't a raging racist, his judgement sucks dick. Telling a terrified woman that you kill people isn't a good way to defuse anything unless she's racist too.

ant (Member Profile)

TED Talk: Whitopia

Drachen_Jager says...

Can you show me where I argued against the statement, "Blanket racial statements are wrong and racist."

If not, perhaps you should go back and take some refresher English classes (preferably some Logic classes too).

Just like Newtboy, you're trying to put words in my mouth. Until you learn how to actually parse sentences and assemble a logical argument there's just no point.

And, in case you had trouble figuring it out, words like "likely" and "could" tend to defuse the "blanket" nature of statements. I can make a ton of statements using those words that are 100% correct.

"A randomly-selected group of Black Americans likely has a lower income than an equal-sized group of White Americans."

Explain to me how that's wrong. For that matter, explain to me how it's a "blanket" statement.

And, just to be clear, there's a wide chasm between using such a statement and arguing against the proposition that such statements are bad. People do bad things all the time that they fully acknowledge are bad. Simply doing a thing does not mean you think it's good.

greatgooglymoogly said:

So "not entirely inaccurate, though" equals "that statement is wrong" to you? I can see why it's so hard to have a discussion in the English language with you. Is it not your original language?

"they are likely mistrustful of people who don't look like them and could be swayed by one or two strong voices to persecute those they see as "other""

Seems like you're fine making large behavioral generalizations based on skin color, or am I reading that one wrong too?

Woman Tries To Block access to Apartment

ChaosEngine says...

On one hand, he could have easily defused the situation by backing off, waiting a second and using his key fob.

But on the other hand, why should he? Maybe's he's an attention seeker, or maybe he's just sick of constant low-level racism and decided "fuck it, I'm not putting up with this bullshit today."

Let's be honest, would she have confronted him if he wasn't a black dude? Does she apply this rigorous security policy to everyone? Also, he has no obligation to tell her what apartment he lives in.

Officer disciplined after getting angry over White Privilege

newtboy says...

Thanks, I had missed that. I retract my complaint about the presenter's tact/training.
Edit:but it did present a missed opportunity to teach how to properly reply to either of them being improper and defuse the situation respectfully.

ChaosEngine said:

Just to be clear, the officer who made the remark (Carri Weber) was not the one giving the seminar.

The presenter (in the red shirt) gives the statistic.
Angry White Dude questions it.
Weber remarks about privilege.
Angry White Dude gets annoyed.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon