search results matching tag: descriptive

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.007 seconds

    Videos (1000)     Sift Talk (120)     Blogs (30)     Comments (1000)   

14 Year Old Parker Stands Up For His Rights...

How it Starts

ForgedReality says...

The REAL looters are the Reugnantc*nts. What the hell do I even pay taxes for? Because they're sure as hell not working for me. DO YOUR EFFING JOBS! IT'S WHAT YOU WERE HIRED TO DO. There should be an actual way to fire all these deadbeat employees, or at least withhold their pay.

It would help if billionaires ever paid a single penny in taxes. Billionaires basically run the country and WE pay them to do it. When the f is the government gonna work for me? It's in their f-ing job description. It's what we pay them to do. We hire them, they take our money and give it to their rich buddies. Never in my whole life have I witnessed the government doing my bidding as a citizen. They work to enrich themselves. What the f do we even need a government for at this point? They sure as f aren't leading. Paying taxes feels like the biggest charitable contribution I make every year and it goes to the least deserving people. It should be tax-deductible.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

"Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism"

Snide and factually wrong, it's his televised support for Nazis and their secret meeting gallery and the public perception that he is a Nazi himself because he supports them and doesn't denounce them that's considered support for nazis, not his sign, not free speech.

"Shows a man holding a sign saying ""the right to openly discuss ideas must be defended", in Hackney, England. Apparently this is not an acceptable sentiment these days; I guess classical liberalism had a pretty good run, but it may be over now."

Also snide and factually wrong. It's a blatant lie that the sentiment on his sign is what they find unacceptable, it's his support for what's seen as a secret nazi/white power meeting hall camouflaged as an art gallery in a neighborhood that doesn't want it, not an open discussion but a secret meeting hall for secret alt-right meetings without openness or discussion.

Clear enough?
I'm guessing not, because you would be forced to admit your mistake, something you seem incapable of doing, but I'll surely get over it.

Edit: seems I've been capable of an excess of civil disagreement...I'm incapable of civility with liars....and funny enough you didn't argue that you didn't lie, only that you didn't know you were snide, which title and description clearly are.

Second edit: I wonder if he supported the same gallery nay secret meeting place for secret invite only meetings for terrorist jihadists, would you still bend over backwards to say all speech matters and his support doesn't equate to support for terrorists? What's the difference?

Buttle said:

I'm not sure what you think was "snide". I think all parties here were arguing in good faith. I'm sad that you seem incapable of civil disagreement, but I'll surely get over it.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

That's sad.
I'm forced to call you a liar then, because the title is a blatant lie, as is the description.

Stupid
Alt-right
Partisan
Lies.

Edit: The motives snidely ascribed are clearly not the actual motives, no matter what you believe the provable definitive facts about who is a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer may be.

I'm sad for you.
Bye.

Buttle said:

Well, I plan to concede nothing.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

bcglorf says...

Why are you on about me for the title/description? This isnt my video

newtboy said:

It sure didn't sound like she publicly posted the personal info of any right wing artists.
She's a liar, one who bitches and moans when her lies are exposed. I don't trust a self serving word she says, she's a proven liar.

Nazis and white power groups are bad enough that standing with them makes one my foe....like NAMBLA.

Sorry, but I've seen far too much alt-right lies and misdirection to buy it, and plenty of evidence that the gallery is abusing support for free speech to support and spread racist, racist alt-right ideologies, and blatantly lying about it. Their actions prove it to me. Pro-racist mass murderer speakers at events open only to alt-right listeners and kept secret from the public = rally, not roundtable.
Alt-right IS code for Nazi or white power, their own code. I'll just call them nazis, KKK, and random white power fans.

I'm still waiting for an admission that the title and description are bullshit, lies, and right wing propaganda. Can you be that honest please?

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

It sure didn't sound like she publicly posted the personal info of any right wing artists. She would never have another event if she had....and the gallery would probably have been firebombed.
She's a liar, one who bitches and moans when her lies are exposed. I don't trust a self serving word she says, she's a proven liar.

Nazis and white power groups are bad enough that standing with them makes one my foe....like NAMBLA. Some ideologies don't deserve any help spreading their message, even though they have a right to. When you offer your soapbox and amplifier to them, you become complicit in their support for hate crimes.

Sorry, but I've seen far too much alt-right lies and misdirection to buy it, and plenty of evidence that the gallery is abusing support for free speech to support and spread racist, racist alt-right ideologies, and blatantly lying about it. Their actions prove it to me. Pro-racist mass murderer speakers at events open only to alt-right listeners and kept secret from the public = rally, not roundtable.
Alt-right IS code for Nazi or white power, their own code. I'll just call them nazis, KKK, and random white power fans.

I'm still waiting for an admission that the title and description are bullshit, lies, and right wing propaganda. Can you be that honest please?

bcglorf said:

I did read about 'doxxing' those artists but the owner of the Gallery is also quoted as saying she did NOT send it to Amerika, but published the list for everyone, and sounded like it was what she always did.

I am a skeptic, and I've too often seen people just lumping others into camps of either friend/foe, and then accelerating the process by identifying anyone that associates with a foe is obviously now a foe too.

I'm sorry, but evidence against the gallery and the guy in the video here looks pretty limited. Might be right, but also might be wrong and I've seen too much witch hunting in Canada where anyone not on board is automatically alt-right, and alt-right is really just code for nazi, and if you've called them alt-right long enough then you can just start calling them a nazi.

It's dishonest, divisive and dangerous.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

The gallery has been accused of providing a platform for fascist, neo-Nazi and Islamophobic speakers and individuals who promote white supremacy and eugenics.

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

After the attack, Mr Stevens, who edits a far-right website called Amerika, wrote: “I am honoured to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

Mr Stevens comments on his blog, Amerika, where he says the “neoreaction conference” was hosted behind a “veil of secrecy", confirming the secret agenda of the gallery because you can't have a beneficial discussion of these issues when the discussion is hidden from one side of the issue. Clearly then this isn't an effort to facilitate “a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies” when the event is hidden from all but one ideology, right?

The gallery has leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.

The gallery has also hosted, Peter Brimelow, a high profile American anti-immigrant activist. He has been described as the “new David Duke” – the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Mr Brimelow founded website VDare, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describe as “a nonprofit that warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.”


Ms Diego, the owner, described the left as “more like a fascist organisation than the real fascists”“I’m not even sure if I disagree with the Muslim ban. I see it also as a temporary measure in order for America to get sorted while they transition to another form of government,” She said: “Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." But her actions, holding far right racist events in secret exposes that statement as pure bullshit.

I can't speak to the student/Jordan Peterson thing without knowing all the facts or I might end up as wrong as the title and description of this video, which is pure lies btw.
I feel it's likely the video she played actually promoted hatred and violence directly, not just that it included one person who had a different political affiliation like you indicate, but I don't know.

After how you erroneously described this event/video, I'm not so sure I can trust your explanations. Sorry.

Again, all this info is in the links provided.

bcglorf said:

The gallery is accused of repeatedly bringing in white-supremacists. The guy in the video is accused of being a neo-nazi figurehead.

The only evidence I’m seeing though is the gallery bringing in one guy I’d clearly label white supremacist, and then a bunch of people that same to have the wrong opinions on immigration, but it’s hardly clear that there is anymore evidence than that with which to convict.

This matters to me because here in Canada a student assistant was brought in for discipline and became the center of a storm for playing a fee minutes if an interview that included UT prof Jordan Peterson. She was accused of promoting hate and violence(and even committing violence herself) for the act of playing the video. All this because Jordan Peterson is a ‘well known’ alt-right extremist...

The evidence I’ve seen here has the same stink to it and so I’m reluctant to just convict the accused on the mobs say so.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

Context matters. Truth matters.

Knowing now that he's a well known Nazi figurehead, a spokesman for the pro Nazi gallery being protested, do you see how the title and description are both utter bullshit lies, a 100% misrepresentation of the truth here?

He is not called a Nazi for supporting free speech. That's a blatant, disgusting, Nazi sympathizing lie he hoped you would repeat. I wish you were ashamed of that, but you just defend it.

His sentiments on his sign aren't the unacceptable sentiments he's removed for, they are the cover for the Nazism he espouses and supports, and the red herring he hoped would distract you from them...It worked, even though you know the truth it still works. *facepalm.

I'm ashamed for you that you got suckered into defending Nazis because for two minutes he managed to appear reasonable and you're willing to completely ignore context, just like he planned.

I'm more ashamed for you that you bought it so deeply that you repeated the bullshit, totally false descriptions without considering you are being duped by a nazi into supporting their cause.

bcglorf said:

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

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

Pure provocation.

Bullshit, he's not protesting in favor of free speech, he's instigating by supporting hate speech and violent hate groups as a spokesman for such groups inserting himself in a protest against them.
He is the equivalent of an Illinois Nazi marching in Skokie during an NAACP rally. That's a great description of what he's doing. He just isn't wearing a uniform.

I defend his right to hate speech, but not in a place and time designed to provoke violence. That's what this is, intentional provocation.

He was being a well known NAZI at an anti Nazi rally! I guess that's not enough for you to consider his presence legal provocation? It clearly was enough for the cops to think so. Before the cut he was probably telling them how subhuman they are, or race traitors supporting sub humans if they're whites. That's what his groups support, and is exactly the type of speech he was defending.

Could I go to the front of a church and hock statues of pagan gods raping Jesus without expecting a more violent reaction? No.

Provocation IS a defense to violence, not that I see any true violence in the video, but it would be justifiable if there were because his presence is definitely, undeniably, intentionally provocative.

Some ideologies are so disgusting that supporting them in public is legal provocation and does excuse violence legally. Advocating child rape would be an example, Nazism is another.

Buttle said:

I'm sure the sign-holder's gallery isn't filled with rainbows and fuzzy ducklings, but he wasn't the equivalent of Illinois nazis marching in Skokie, either. The old school Liberal antidote to hateful speech is more and better speech, not mob violence.

It seems that one of his crimes was showing material in support of Donald Trump, who, loathe him if you will, is still the legally elected president of one of the UKs chief allies. If his supporters can't make their case in public then I fear for the future of civil discourse.

Regardless of the content of whatever expression this guy may have made elsewhere, in the video he really is protesting in favor of free speech, and he really is being assaulted while the cops wander away. I hold with the friends of Voltaire, who, though they might disapprove of what he says would defend to the death his right to say it.

As for editing the video, what could he have been doing in the lead up to this scene? Hawking Trump bobble-heads?

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

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.

I'm just guessing, but I bet his chosen spot was right behind the speakers who were on camera...so would be stealing their soapbox. He could have been inside the gate, 3 ft away, and held his sign just as visibly....but nope, he had to be in the middle of the protest against Nazis telling them they're wrong, you just need to give those poor Nazis and white power organizations more of a platform and more time to espouse their hatred, and ignore the real violence and murders they commit.

Ok, you see a violent attack, mob violence, I see an older woman gently walking him out and others yelling, not touching.
You see a violent robbery of his sign, I see his tool for disruption being removed.
You act like his treatment was SO far over the line and 100% unacceptable. I see him treated with kid gloves in a way that his group wouldn't even fathom, because they use ACTUAL violence to do ACTUAL harm, not slow tender shoving without hands or feet out of the middle of their event, punches, kicks, machetes, torches, nooses, etc. This wasn't even turnabout, and turnabout is always fair play.

If this crosses your line, and this group needs some repercussions, what does his actually violent hate group need? More than a protest.

So, when is your child's next birthday party? I guess I can come and advocate for more incest pornography, and you would just let me be? Bullshit.
As you saw, the police were there and not getting involved. It's not honest to say "it's the police and court system you want to pull in" when the police were there.

Again, what park do your children have parties in, I'll be there with my sign before the party starts so I won't be "invading" your party and I expect you to protect me from all the angry parents....yeah right. That's asinine. If I intentionally provoke them to violence, that's on me.

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. He is (in part) exactly what they are protesting. It's almost a certainty that before his heavily edited video starts he was being loud and disruptive, then acted reasonable and meek after instigating violence with his typical hate speech. Provocation actually is a legal defense to violence.

Can you at least admit the title and description are total lies? They called him a Nazi for being one, not for supporting free speech.
The liberals removed him from their event for being a well known Nazi, not the sentiment on his sign.
The way this is portrayed is absolutely bullshit. He's not a victim he's an instigator, he wasn't hurt, he's absolutely not interested in freedom of speech for everyone.

bcglorf said:

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.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

Lol. Yeah, right, more liberal (my liberal friends think I'm pretty conservative, I say I'm old school republican... socially liberal and fiscally responsible, definitely not a neocon)...but do you feel the same about BLM activists disrupting other events, they should be allowed to stay and speak, holding their anti police violence signs high even at anti BLM rallies? Would they be allowed?

I agree, getting slightly physical with him was stooping ever so slightly closer to his ilk's level, although the extent they got physical was pretty minor, wasn't it?
Oh no...they grabbed his cardboard sign equivalent to an all lives matter sign at a BLM march. VIOLENCE!! Pay him one cent in restitution if he sues. It's not a civil rights case, it's what he was hoping for.

When a known white power spokesman shows up at a protest against a white power organization he's associated with it's international provocation. Don't be naive.

Removing him by having an older woman slowly walk into him until he's out of the middle of the protest doesn't bother me one bit. I don't call that violence, I call it the opposite. If they punched him, violently grabbed him (not his sign), kicked him, or actually assaulted him I might think differently, but I saw none of that.

If he wasn't doing this in the middle of a protest against his pro Nazi racist organization in an effort to disrupt and distract from the anti racist crowd, I might feel differently. He has every right to his voice, but not their soapbox. No one stopped him from standing outside the active protest area with any sign.

They grabbed his cardboard, he was so intimidated that he held on and went back into the angry mob with it instead of letting them steal it, then cries for years about how he was attacked violently by an entire mob that didn't touch him. He was poking the bull, got a snort, and cries he got both horns.

What I saw was a person who was identified as a well known racist spokesman intentionally provoking anti racists at an anti racist event and being calmly moved out of the crowd without anyone laying hands on him.

I did not see what the title and description describes at all.

It was his well known public support of Nazism being considered support for Nazism, not free speech.

It was not the disingenuous words on his sign they found unacceptable it was his public support of racist positions that were the unacceptable sentiments. (disingenuous because I assume he doesn't think blacks should have a right to openly join discussions of ideas, but his sign meant Nazi/white supremacist opinions matter and you must let them espouse them whenever and wherever they wish including at anti racist events or you're anti free speech...which I find to be hypocritical nonsense).

bcglorf said:

Well, we’ve finally found an area where I lean more left/liberal than you do.

I hate how little evidence seems required to class someone ‘alt-right’ and equally how little effort is needed to re-class anyone ‘alt-right’ as a fascist, racist and nazi. It’s beyond intellectual laziness, and stinks of modern day witch huntery sometimes.

For the video here though, I can even hypothetically cede that all too you, and lets just pretend the guy in the video is 100% a committed, public Hitler enthusiast.

Even then, if all he wants to do is stand in the street with a sign, as he is in the video, then I lean left/liberal enough that I still believe you then meet him with words and counter protest, reveal his ideas as the vile poison they are. You do NOT get to use force and violence to chase him off by shoving him out, physically making him leave, and trying to steal his sign or assault him.

If he crosses the line of messages that promote violence, then the police get to use force to bring him in front of a judge and charge him. Angry mobs crushing dissenting opinion though is NOT the way forwards.

Welsh Seagull Steals Tourist's Sausage Roll

Family Terrorized By Crackheads

The Walk.

newtboy says...

No, it's not.

Part 1: It's exactly the same gradient in both videos...probably the same exact ramp.
This is not a wheelchair ramp, which is what your ada numbers represent. If you're going to mock the video, you should at least get your ramp type right.

Part2: Where's the comparison video of Trump slowly struggling to climb this ever so steep ramp? A 3' rise in nearly 40' is not steep unless you are severely disabled. (BTW, that's about a 4.3 degree ramp, a 7.3% slope....those stripes are about 1.5' wide, and the stage floor is only two stripes up from ground level. Again, if you're going to mock the video, at least get your numbers close if not right.).

Apples to apples then, 15:20- 15:30. https://youtu.be/wY5rduEmEwk
Joe jogs, Trump barely thinks he can.

Or feel free to compare Trump's "run" at the end (the only "running" we've ever seen from him) with this then ... https://youtu.be/BY5sB7GvabY


Part3: Yes, Trump already described this event, and his description/explanation was nearly identical to yours....just like @bcglorf said. I'd say his 100% is close, Trump may have used a different arrangement of words but he said exactly the same thing.

Your implications are apparently that you think Trump is healthy, as healthy as Biden, and the media is making his poor health up. That is demonstrably false by any metric. Biden is old as fuck and my second to last choice from the Democratic field (Clinton is my last choice), but hands down Biden beats Trump in vigor, cognition, stability....just about any measure of health, mental or physical, that I've ever heard of except possibly the ability to deceive.

BTW, sarcasm could totally be interpreted from your comment. You deride the numbers given then offer your own random numbers that are exponentially farther off, and give a nonsensical excuse that this isn't a proper wheelchair ramp, how could an able bodied man possibly walk up and down it!? Many people assume nonsense like that will be taken as a joke, so refuse to use the sarcasm button.
Again, if you want to deride other people's facts, you should get yours right...it's about a 4.3 degree ramp, not 11.

harlequinn said:

It's an 11 degree ramp, not 3, which is over 2 times the gradient allowed (as per the ADA). And the ADA requires ramps of this sort to have handrails.

Where's the comparison video? I.e., Biden coming down the ramp.


Part 1: the video portrays mocking. If they're going to mock someone, they should at least get their numbers right, otherwise they're no better than Trump and his continual exaggerations (e.g. it's like them saying "and it was the least steepest ramp in the world, and I've walked all the ramps of the world, more than anyone else").

Part 2: if they're trying to be funny by comparing two things then you have to, you know, compare the two things. So where is the video of Biden coming down the ramp? I want to see Biden cartwheel down the ramp like a champ.
Part 3: "I can 100% expect Trump, if he ever sees the clip, to respond exactly as your comment did", except for the fact that Trump already described this event (walking down the ramp) in this video. So you better check your 100%

BTW, there is no dilemma - no sarcasm was implied or could be interpreted from my comment, and there is a little sarcasm check box that remained unchecked (just to be sure). On the other hand, I fully expected someone to try to diminish my comment, because facts always get in the way of a good story.

2020 Jeep Wrangler Rolls Over In Small Overlap Crash Tests

Mordhaus says...

The title of the video on Youtube is the title I used.

The comment about airbags was a portion of the description of the video. There are no side airbags for the rear seat passengers.

Also per the description - 2019-2020 Jeep Wrangler 4-door rolls over during IIHS crash test

I did watch the video.

cisystems said:

It should be pointed out that this is clearly "Says so on the hood and doors" a test of the 2019 Jeep, not 2020. Also you say there are no side airbags, but side airbags are clearly seen in the entire video.

Either you accidentally posted the wrong video, or you didn't watch it before posting it.



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