What dumb nonsense.

1) what does that have to do with the post you were replying to, the right’s faux outrage over Minnesota’s new flag 100% falsely portrayed as a copy of the Somali flag by righty media? Absolutely nothing.
2) I’m not black
3) I wouldn’t listen to idiotic and ignorant paid actors spewing right wing nonsense. No one cares what Kanye says, nobody’s listening to Uncle Ruckus….wait…is that Kanye’s indicted publicist?
4) let’s list a few accomplishments Democrats made for the black community recently - police reform. They came up with a dumb name for it, but Biden/Democrats got major reforms of police departments to the extent that many now prosecute criminal cops instead of handing them a bonus for murdering black people and covering it up. Republicans fought against that.
-infrastructure. Biden/Democrats made the biggest investment in infrastructure in our lifetimes. This benifits those dependent on infrastructure more than the wealthy. Republicans fought against that.
-marijuana reform. Biden/democrats have stopped prosecuting marijuana possession, made marijuana legal in many many states, and exonerated and freed federal prisoners and cons with federal possession convictions, which are disproportionately minorities. Republicans fought against that.

Sorry girl, you either got duped or are being paid to say this ignorant propaganda. There’s a reason blacks voted for Biden by 92%-8% for Trump, and it’s not out of ignorance, and not because some old white guy told them to.

It’s hilarious you are so incredibly dumb you think this kind of blatant partisan stupidity is going to change minds. Black people are just people, they are not inherently so clueless that they just vote democrat because someone said to, how insanely racist are you!?!, someone also said vote Republican why doesn’t that make them vote R? They see who is working for their community and who is actively working against them for racist motives, trying to remove their rights, their votes, their funding, their voice, their freedoms, and their lives.

We all know who thinks Black Lives Matter, and who thinks they don’t. We all know which party welcomes racists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists and which party expels them. If you are Republican, you either are racist or are happy to stand with and for racists. The rest left during Trump.

Do you honestly think anyone could possibly be swayed by a dishonest moronic tool for the extreme right like yourself!?!😂😂😂!

You and the extreme right have squandered any trustworthiness you ever had with your nonsensical lies and propaganda, and your constant total inability to ever admit you are w-w-w-w-w-wrong despite being 99% wrong 99.9% of the time. 😂

Hmmm…why would TMIO Tesla channel be pro Tesla. Clearly an unbiased source.
Give it up, Bob.
😂

You aren’t capable of changing minds because you aren’t serious. You could be so thick you don’t know you only listen to your echo chamber, but I doubt it.
Wasting your time, and I doubt you watched it. I won’t bother. Waste of my totally worthless time.

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?

Lol. Know a lot of crack heads, do you? A piece of the puzzle falls into place.

It's telling that you equate accepting minimal increased risk of eating bacon daily with the across the board inescapable destruction caused by crack addiction....and exemplifies your penchant for hyperbole and exaggeration coupled with snide insults.

You love to deride anyone who disagrees with your unsupported extreme positions based on activist "doctors" intentional misinterpretations of studies as ignorant, dumb, incapable of understanding, and now a crackhead. It's sad you can't see how much damage you do your own cause with your constant exaggerations and tantrums when they're challenged.

I don't think you're changing minds the way you want.

The reality is that sceptics today are targeting esjews for the same reason they have every other group of harmful cultists in the past. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a community of dedicated rationalists would be mystified and angered by the sudden rise of a new anti-rational movement; especially where that movement has been directly damaging to their own, see things like elevatorgate and prominent sceptics getting banned from conventions for wrongthink.

But why should the focus be suddenly so sharply on one group of irrationalists, to the apparent neglect of the others? Because esjudaism is the fresher and more exigent threat. Everyone in the current generation who's capable of correcting their ideas about religion, ghosts, scientology and psychics has basically already done so. Whereas esjews, like their frequent allies and ideological partners the islamists, seem to be gaining ground and converts every day. There's more opportunity and more need to change minds there than elsewhere.

Controversially I'm going to claim that 'youtube sceptics' spend a lot of their time on social media. Some of them make their living through social media. I think it's possible to understand why so many of them object so strongly to the tsunami of censorship that's devastating speech on those platforms in response to social justice hysteria; to suppression of the fictional and fascist concept of 'hate speech', to the false reports and takedowns of youtube videos, to twitter's Ministry of Truth and Safety, to reddit's constant ideological purges.

Now, why are so many of these anti-esjew sceptics white males? Well for one thing because most people in the english-speaking world are white, get over it and stop screeching about diversity. More substantially because most people are idiots. Let me explain. When you have a terrible ideology, obviously you look to stupid people for converts, but when you have an explicitly bigoted ideology, one that demonises certain groups of people while advancing special privileges for others, you narrow your focus even more and direct your propaganda efforts specifically at stupid people in the classes you're pretending to represent. You don't get many jewish friends of national socialism, and you don't get many white male esjews. It's not that these people are sitting on their throne of privilege chuckling down at the poor minorities struggling up to meet them. It's that they're a bunch of retards, but the wrong kind of retards to be esjews.

So opposition to esjudaism comprises: every intelligent and moral person in the world, male and female, black and white, gay and straight; a bunch of stupid straight white men; conservatives and other defectives; actual misogynists, homophobes and racists who imagine we're on their side.

TLDR: Sturgeon's Law.

this actually makes me really mad. stewart and colbert have THE voice. they have the ability to reach the vast majority of people and the ability to change minds and they haven't using it. they're still playing the game and still playing it safe. they say everything up until the line of acceptability but refuse to cross it and what people need now is a voice that crosses that line of acceptability, of that idea that "well, it's equal but opposite". it's fucking not. the republicans are being destroyed by their own ideology from the inside out and the dems have nominated their version of richard nixon. stewart and colbert are both in a position to call this out for what it is and make no apologies for it but they refuse to. i think that is a massive act cowardice on their part and i find it incredibly disappointing.

i really love these guys but they're really dropping the ball here, in my opinion.

Sorry, I don't speaks no langijizz. ;-)
No, again, I don't expect, or even want her to drop out. I don't know what gave that impression. I expect, and want, a reasoned debate about which is better, and which is more likely to win. There may be some unknown on either side that would change minds if they discuss it rationally.
Bernie has continued to say often that he's going to the convention and not dropping out, even if Clinton locks it up. I don't think he's planning on pulling out, but yes, stranger things have happened. Wait until >3 days AFTER that day to ask his supporters to vote for Clinton would be my suggestion.
He has been far more successful than anyone expected 9 months ago, and she's been far less successful. Yes. ;-)

This....THIS is why we are going to have a Trump presidency. Cheating to make Clinton the nominee doesn't gain them supporters, it loses them and denies the possibility of changing minds in their favor....EDIT: And they can't win if they don't change the minds of independents.

The DNC has totally thrown the rules, honesty, what it means to be a Democrat, and their party soul out the window and have done everything possible to force Hillary down our throats. Even if she was a viable or reasonable candidate...and she's absolutely NOT....this kind of underhanded behavior on her behalf disqualifies her...and the DNC...from being an acceptable option. They don't seem to comprehend the damage they do to the entire party with this BS...it's like they're watching the Republicans kill and eat themselves and are saying 'hey, we need to get us some of that'.
Not only will this hurt Hillary by making her look more underhanded and criminal, it will hurt the other Democrats up for election this cycle. I, and many others, have a really hard time voting for someone on a 'team' that's become the antithesis of 'transparent, honest, and fair'.
I won't vote for Trump, but I'll also never vote for Hillary. I'll write in Sanders if I have to. How great would it be to have a write in candidate not beholding to either party in power?!?

*promote exposing more election fraud

My 2 cents....

1) Don't EVER get your science just from the internet. ALWAYS verify anything you think you've learned with published peer reviewed science publications/articles.
Veganism does NOT cure or inoculate against cancer (which I'm assuming is what you mean by the #1 killer in the western world). If it did, that would be headline news and easy to prove, since vegans would all be cancer free, they're not. That's some serious BS right there. It may be HELPFUL against heart disease, I'll grant you that much. If that's what you meant, ignore the above.
If the point is eating healthier, excluding processed foods is exponentially better than excluding meats, and should be the first step people take when changing their diet, long before excluding meats all together.

2)So now Vegans are just like anti-choice people who think their choice should be the only choice for everyone!? I hate to tell you, but that position will make your movement lose, no question. Your position leads to only one logical conclusion, attempting to force people to stop eating meat. You don't change minds by force. I suggest you try a seriously different tact, or I fear you're methods may destroy your movement.

3)There is NO "better" alternative to meat. There may be alternatives, but they are not "better" nutritionally. The energy humans gain from eating meat is why we have the brain that allows you to take those positions, plants simply don't offer than dense nutritional value. True enough, evolution is barely still in effect for humans, but that's no reason to stop feeding your body/brain.

Personally, I can see no rational reason to stop eating meat except for moral or health reasons, and if you eat meat raised properly and morally, those moral reasons no longer exist. As we've discussed before, meat from small, local farms rather than large factory farms is often raised with love and care, so there's no abuse, only a scheduled end to life. I have no moral objection to that (and have a hard time seeing how others might have a reasonable objection to it) so I'll continue to eat meat, but I do make an effort to eat only morally raised meats. When the odd occasion happens when I can't choose the meats I prefer, I do feel somewhat guilty, but not enough to go pure vegetarian, certainly not vegan. (which reminds me, all dairy is not produced immorally either. Some smaller farms still exist that treat their cattle with care, but they are sadly disappearing as people usually only buy factory farmed dairy as well, it's far cheaper).
For those who eat so much meat that it's a health issue (yes, I do agree that it causes many health issues if you eat too much), I'm right there with you saying they should eat way less, or none, until they get their health under control.

If you truly like this site, why do you constantly and consistently denigrate it in your comments?
I would bet that at least 90% of internet trolls would say the same thing...'I'm not a troll, I just hate (or-"have to hold my nose at posting" of 'X') most everything and everyone on or about this site and I'm going to tell you about what I see as it's problems and foibles daily. I have every right to express my opinion.'...yes, you have a right...but they way you go about it makes you a troll, IMO.

If I went to a right wing leaning message board and, daily, told them what misguided morons they all are, and how the site is worthless because it's nothing more than a bastion for the idiot right and all the misguided, America hating morons in it, I would be a troll. It would be obvious that I would not be intending to change minds, only to insult and lambast those I disagree with.

Please to explain...how are you different in the way you post here?

EDIT: Ultra left DOJ!!!! I was rolling on the floor at that one buddy, good one.
Almost as funny as you calling yourself "conservative"...what you are is a neo-con...which means you want to return to a past that never existed...a "new" (imaginary) past you wish to conserve...therefore "neo-con".
I am actually an old school republican, which are fiscally 'conservative' (which means we try to conserve our funds by spending them wisely on programs that save money as a whole, like upkeep of infrastructure...not the same thing as removing all spending/taxation)
-and a social liberal (Yes, real republicans are (were) anti-war, anti-corporatist, anti-religion in government, pro-environment, pro-freedom to choose your own morality, actual thinkers. Regan changed all that 180 deg. Now I have NO party that represents me. It's hilarious to hear you guys call me a "lefty" over and over!)

*Kill meh changed mind as I do

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Yogi:
You think voting is working to change the system? I'm working by doing my own things to change the system, being involved in social movements to change minds...not pulling a lever once every four years and thinking I'm fucking doing something. You're doing nothing, you just don't get that.

Well, first off, I don't live in the U.S.
I take an interest in its politics because whether I like it or not, it affects me.
Second, I'm not doing nothing, I'm participating in a democratic process. Hell, I'm not even an NZ citizen and I still get to make a difference.
Finally, if you are genuinely involved in social movements (where "involved in social movements" does not equal "bitching on the web") then kudos to you, brother.


OH MY GOD HAVE YOU BEEN TO HOBBITON??!?! :3

>> ^Yogi:

You think voting is working to change the system? I'm working by doing my own things to change the system, being involved in social movements to change minds...not pulling a lever once every four years and thinking I'm fucking doing something. You're doing nothing, you just don't get that.


Well, first off, I don't live in the U.S.
I take an interest in its politics because whether I like it or not, it affects me.

Second, I'm not doing nothing, I'm participating in a democratic process. Hell, I'm not even an NZ citizen and I still get to make a difference.

Finally, if you are genuinely involved in social movements (where "involved in social movements" does not equal "bitching on the web") then kudos to you, brother.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Yogi:
I think George Carlin cleared this up already. If YOU vote than it's your fault, the people who don't vote get to complain because YOU Voters screwed up the country.

Sorry, but that's bullshit and my respect for Carlin has just gone way down.
Fine, you don't like the system. You feel that both candidates are crooks, liars, war criminals and nickelback fans. You don't want to vote for either of them.
Ok, what are you doing about that? If you're not going to vote within the system, what are you doing to change it?
"What can I do to change the system all by myself?"
I dunno, but that's not my problem. You're the one who believes it's so fucked up that you can't participate. Yeah, it's difficult and you have fuck all chance of making a meaningful change, but if you believe it's that badly broken, don't you have a moral obligation to at least try?
So either use your voice to make an informed decision or work to change the system. Otherwise STFU.


You think voting is working to change the system? I'm working by doing my own things to change the system, being involved in social movements to change minds...not pulling a lever once every four years and thinking I'm fucking doing something. You're doing nothing, you just don't get that.