And interviewee being out of focus ..

While I don't necessarily crave for his old comedy routine from himself anymore -- I've got enough of that from TDS vets like Noah, Bee, Colbert as well as Meyers -- I desperately want his kind of sharp questions posed to his interviewees, with or without the laughs. This 1st episode didn't deliver that, and so its quality isn't above the other shows. I hope it gets better, it CAN get much better.

I don't really dislike or get offended by any of the interviewee's thoughts here, but the older gentleman is very well reasoned, logical, and cool about it while also being conscious about the potential for misunderstandings that can be avoided if we know a little history.

As an adjunct to this video, there is this interview with 2 BLM activists that is part of the documentary.

The awful irony is that in the documentary, Daryl has far more reasoned and polite conversations with dyed in the wool white supremacists than he does with fellow members of his race.

After the two interviewees walk out, a 3rd BLM member steps in and launches an escalating tirade, but storms out without even bothering to listen to a different viewpoint.

This is what I think is the issue. When people who proclaim that black lives matter can't even sit there and listen to the opinion of a black man, what's the fucking point?

Perhaps the most poignant part of this video is the last minute (from 10:00 onwards).

(speaking about one of the BLM members)

"He was very definite that white people could not change. How is he going to advance any agenda in this country, as diverse as it is?"

Where to start? You're provably wrong on every single point you made.

It's actually been made clear he mistook a political anti-immigrant interviewee and clips from their movie (already debunked, btw) he watched on Fox for a news report on crime in Sweden.

2016 Swedish crime surveys showed a stable crime rate over the last decade, no marked rise. This was just one of the falsehoods in the movie/interview, and a good example of why getting his "information" from Breitbart and Fox and discarding the intelligence community as political opponents is treason level incompetence.

The vast majority of voters don't, and didn't support him. He lost the election, bigly, he only won the electoral college.

There are so many reasons he's a disaster to talk about that we need every mouth available on the job. ;-)

Yeah, I guess it could be used as a tactic to knock an interviewee off balance, to talk about a subject they wouldn't have otherwise talked about. Seems pretty lowball, but I'm sure they do it all the time. (not sure if this was what happened in this particular one or not.)

Interesting that the interviewees don't see the characters as Japanese (and possibly not even asian?). So in that case, it seems fine if any actor plays an anime character, but certainly asian actors should be considered for the role(s).

That was still an awesome prat fall. And I'd love to see the interviewee's response to what just happened.

Yes, I wish we had the run up to the 'interview' to have better context here as well.

Well, to me when he mentions the pure form of the chemical itself, not the 'normally used diluted mixture', he's saying clearly that the chemical is not cancer causing, or dangerous, so much so that you can drink it pure and not even die (driven home by the 'attempted suicide failures' he mentioned, they certainly aren't drinking dilutions). If he means only the diluted form, he should not say "glyphosate" and talk about suicides, because that's only about the pure chemical form.

To me, he was obviously trying to make the point that the chemical is SO safe, you can drink it straight with no ill effects, a point seemingly seized by the interviewer who offers him what can be assumed is supposed to be pure glyphosate (we have no idea what it really is, it might be just water and a quick interviewer's trick), because that's what the interviewee had been defending.

OK, I'll conceded that most large farms likely use it at the minimum concentration that will work for them, I meant most consumers. I suppose it's likely that large farms use WAY more than consumers do, I just don't know. Home users rarely even read the label, and often double the dosage so 'it will work better/faster', and sometimes just use pure concentrate (breathing it as they spray).

I continue to contend that acetic acid is NOT a pertinent comparison because pure glyphosate is how the product is sold to consumers on the shelf with barely any warnings, but you can't buy pure acetic acid outside a chemical supply store with multiple severe warnings about it's extreme dangers...but you can buy pure vinegar on the shelf, and it's normally diluted to between 10% and 1% when people use it too, so I see it as a much closer comparison...and it's what you mentioned...not acetic acid, vinegar is different from 'diluted acetic acid', it's a specific product, not a dilution of another product. It's not made by mixing water with pure acid. OK?

First, even you said it's normally properly used at up to 10% concentration. Most people use it at the maximum concentration so it works effectively. 1% concentration almost never does the job....often 10% requires repeated applications, I know from experience.

Second, where does the interviewer EVER say it's PURE roundup in the glass? Where does the interviewee ever question the concentration level, or say "it is dangerous at full concentration"?...he doesn't, he said it's not harmful and I'll be glad to drink it. Period. he actually said, talking about PURE glyphosate "You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you"...and 'I'd be glad to drink it...not really'....Not 'it's not harmful when diluted to 1%', not 'it's not harmful when used correctly with proper safety gear', but blanket 'it's not harmful, you can drink it', which is obviously a lie. At anywhere near full concentration, it's deadly, and even at full maximum dilution, it's harmful to ingest and studies seem to indicate it causes cancer and other problems...which is why he won't drink it like he claimed he would.

You said vinegar, not pure acid. Pure concentrated acetic acid is not the same thing, but diluted to normally found full concentrations it's completely harmless, unlike roundup. Pure water is deadly, but not something you can find, just like pure acetic acid is something you can't find...but pure roundup is how they sell it, and how many (idiots) use it. That makes it a totally FAIR comparison, especially when the spokesman is telling you clearly that the pure chemical is completely harmless and drinkable (only commenters have brought up concentration levels, not the spokesman, he just said "not harmful, drinkable").

"For those who are wondering, I convinced my interviewees that the bet was not a scam: they could inspect the coin, flip it themselves, use their own coin etc. I explained that the experiment was intended to explore their approach to risk. It was fear of losing $10, not distrust, that led them to decline the bet."

And here I was just about to point out that any bloke on the street offering me a similar bet is a con artist by default. Sometimes it is good to check YT comments first.

But, yeah, the fall is totally fake.

Her butt was firmly perched on the inside of the rail. When she grabbed the rope neither her feet nor butt moved, then all of a sudden she pops her butt out toward the water.

And weirder than the boom mic thing, the interviewee takes off his Olympic medal or whatever that necklace is and starts trying to hand it down to her in the water as if that would save her. Wtf?

And every single one of those interviewees just proved their opinions on any topic to be utterly worthless.

Apparently they get walked out on a lot--and then the interviewee comes right back out.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.