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?

If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

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" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

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. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

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.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

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. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/cia-veterans-who-monitored-crackdowns-abroad-see-troubling-parallels-in-trump-handling-of-protests/20
20/06/02/7ab210b8-a4f6-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

A taste....
Other former CIA and national security officials rendered similarly troubled verdicts.

Marc Polymeropoulos, who formerly ran CIA operations in Europe and Asia, was among several former agency officials who recoiled at images of Trump hoisting a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington after authorities fired rubber bullets and tear gas to clear the president’s path of protesters.

“It reminded me of what I reported on for years in the third world,” Polymeropoulos said on Twitter. Referring to the despotic leaders of Iraq, Syria and Libya, he said: “Saddam. Bashar. Qaddafi. They all did this.”

I must say, it's really baffling to me that he's seen as some alpha-male type. He recoils and slinks away at the slightest criticism or he flips out and starts going through his best of racism, name calling, or makin shit up like a rolodex of stupid excuses for why he can't or wont answer a simple question.

I've said before that he's a stupid person's idea of a smart person, a poor person's idea of a rich person, and add to that a cuckold's idea of an alpha male. He's not stoic and steadfast. He's arrogant and boorish.

Actual racists only use these new symbols when the mainstream recoils in horror and labels the trolls incorrectly as racists instead of as trolls, or just ignoring them. I think many spreading the "it's ok to be white" slogan are trolls too. They enjoy seeing people freak out at a phrase that says nothing negative about anyone, but many people will read into it a hidden meaning. You can't discern intention in these cases, only assume based on your personal previous exposure. I seem to understand it as a response/analog to "black lives matter" which most people don't think secretly means white lives don't matter, and the posters think the disproportionate response is racial bias.

Yes, that's a larger diameter than an anti tank rifle, which usually was between 12.7mm and 20mm. But compared to, say, a 20mm Lahti L39, this most likely uses a lot less propellant in the cartridge. A lot. Thus less muzzle energy, less recoil, less injuries.

For comparison, Rock Island had a four gauge and a .950 JDJ (that's ~24mm) in one of their auctions, and they took them out for some shooting. Here's the clip: link. And yes, that's Ian from FW in the background.

Hmm. I disagree with your description text, @ChaosEngine.

I've never shot something fully-automatic. I have shot an AR-15 semi-automatic, and I know where you're coming from when you say that hitting a target on full auto would be difficult, especially for a relatively untrained person (recoil control).

However, I think Vox and others are basically correct when they say that this modification (bump stock) contributed to the Las Vegas shooting being so deadly. Specifically in that sort of scenario.

The dude wasn't picking targets and sniping, going for accuracy. He picked an ideal shooting location (elevation with clear LOS) and sprayed into a crowd. He'd have been more accurate by keeping the weapon on semi-auto and actually aiming carefully, and certainly would have gotten more hits per bullet fired, but on the other hand the rate of fire difference would have so different that people would have had more time between shots to scramble for cover, etc.

He had position, an abundance of bullets, and lots and lots of time. Given those givens, having a rate of fire approximately equal to fully-automatic means a much higher body count than if he'd have been limited to traditional semi-auto.


The NRA is being more cunning than I figured they would, and has come out in favor of banning bump stocks. I agree with you that they see that mostly as a pointless concession, and a distraction from additional / better stuff that needs to happen.

But it isn't a pointless concession. If banning fully-automatic firearms in 1986 (minus the ones grandfathered in) was the right thing to do, extending that to include bump stocks is also the right thing to do. For the same reasons.

@newtboy is correct to note that technically, a rifle with a bump stock isn't a fully-automatic "machine gun". The user's finger still pulls the trigger once for every bullet that comes out -- semi-automatic.

However, I think that the "spirit" of the distinction is that with semi-automatic firing you have to think and consciously decide to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot a bullet, whereas with fully-automatic you consciously decide when you want to start and stop shooting. By the letter of the law, weapons with bump stocks are semi-automatic. But by that definition of the "spirit" of the law, they are fully-automatic. Pull the grip/barrel forward to start shooting, pull it back to stop.

It's a pretty frequent occurrence for technology to outpace the law. The definitions of semi vs fully automatic include the word "trigger" because they didn't anticipate this kind of conversion that makes the trigger sort of one step removed from the conscious decision to fire. The law would have similar hiccups if a weapon was developed that used a button or switch to fire, rather than a traditional trigger.

When those hiccups happen, the solution is to clarify the intent of the law and expand or clarify definitions as necessary. I'm pleasantly surprised that many legislators seem willing to do that with bump stocks, and that the NRA seems like it won't stand in the way. Mission accomplished, situation resolved? No. But a step in the right direction.

You're right but the advantage Corbyn has is that we don't have a Trump character. Not only has Farage quit, Boris sunk his own career in a party of backstabbers, but we had our personality politics moment and I think people are past it.

The papers won't tell you that; our 8 billionaires will pull out every stop to convince the great unwashed that he's dangerous. The papers will tell you every day right up until a general election that he will lead Labour into electoral oblivion, even as thousands pack out halls in unprecedented showings of support in northern "racist" (according to MSM) towns. They'll tell you they won't win from UKIP and be out of power for 20 years.

I'm not saying he WILL win a GE because the playing field is not level, the game is not fair. Boundary changes will play right into Tory hands and the character assassinations will only increase, but if ANYONE has a chance of winning for Labour it's Corbyn. Owen Smith hasn't a hope in hell of getting MORE votes than Corbyn would, at an election.

The only way to win is by going with Corbyn but I fear that there are influential ex and current MPs who are sabotaging the campaign because this wave of populism and people power would not be beneficial to their future prosperity.

We are living in a post-truth world right now, with journalistic integrity at an all time low. A window was broken in the stairwell of a building where a Corbyn-Labour rival has an office, and it was splashed all over the news that it was a violent, thuggish Corbyn supporter just like they all are. There was no evidence and they even lied about the facts, which has been reported on twitter and by smaller news sources, but the damage is already done, throw enough shit and some of it will stick.

As Lyndon Johnson says - I know it didn't happen, but let's make the bastard deny it. Oh and apologies for shameless derailment.

On topic:
Is Schieffer making the usual mistake here? "It's not the left she needs to worry about, it's the middle." Taking the left for granted is what happened to Labour in the last 10-15 years and seen their support die pre-Corbyn. Dunno how it is in USA but over here the left have had to hold their noses and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent them at all and they're getting sick of it. So thanks to the internet when they finally see the cracks forming they recoil in horror at how they've been undermined from the inside from day one; why should they ever vote for that again?

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

I like the way his fat ripples when he shoots. Must be excellent recoil absorption.

I like that little extra shell-ring thingy he's got on the shotgun you can see him using to reload right before the slow motion bit. I've never seen one of those before and at first I thought he was pushing a mis-fired shell back into the chamber (or whatever you call it in a shotgun, the breach?), which asking about was the reason I started this comment until I watched it a third time.

I've never fired a semi-automatic shotgun (or any kind of shotgun since I was 15 or so) but I do recall a 12-gauge having a not insignificant amount of recoil, and I've heard from a SWAT guy that semi-automatic shotguns are frowned upon because people in panic-firefight-mode tend to pull the trigger too fast and end up shooting the ceiling. He seems to have no problem though.

That gave me goosebumps all the way up my back... and I like spiders, too! But man, just seeing that big crawling mass of black brings out some kind of instinctual recoil in me.

To elaborate on the captain's explanation:

Each barb of the feather is bending downward under its own weight due to the force of gravity. The weight of the barb exerts a downward bending force on itself. When the feather begins to fall, each barb is no longer affected by gravity, and so, recoils to its "natural" position of minimal tension. Though I can't see it in this video, I assume that each barb actually oscillates a bit about its natural position.