Raider5678

I was thinking the same thing. At the moment however, I was observing the fact I can keep voting in this poll.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5s3QDqPTHc Yeah..... because this video is so crackpot..... pointing out it has nothing to do with the Bermuda triangle, and that most likely Atlantis was based on an actual island city that sank.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG0zbgfeqKE Or this one, where they point out the likelihood of an alien civilization living on the moon is unlikely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZau0M0xKoM Or this one that analyzes evidence to determine if Hitler killed himself like the Soviet Union said or not(Fine. I'll admit this one. They came out with "Probably, we're not really sure. Questionable sources") Have you watched any of their videos? These are the first three videos I picked out, at random, and none of them seem all that crackpot to me. They proved the moon landings happened, they pointed out Atlantis was most likely based off of an interesting island, they speculated on Hitler and determined the most likely killed himself and wasn't held secretly by American spies, they pointed out that Nasa is most likely not hiding aliens on the moon and that it just costs a lot of money to go there. Is it clickbait? Absolutely. But from the videos I watched I didn't find any false information. Now, I didn't spend hours researching them as I'm sure you have to make sure they were actually crackpots, so if you could provide the video that's absolute bs, I'd appreciate that. Otherwise, pick another group.

I didn't say they had to correlate with people's concept of race though.... Ah, that makes sense. +1

Many youtube channels have millions of subscribers, correct. Show me a crackpot one that's feeding false news, that has over 1 million. No. 500k. Wait, no. 100,000 subscribers of a youtube channel/social media account that presents crackpot conspiracies. Or sells political lies. Either one.

It's a fairly well defined term. Race is the biological similarities and differences between one or more groups within the same species, most notably humans. Ethnicity is the difference between cultures.

And, rather than pointing fingers for trivial matters, why not actually address something? And, rather than throwing out solutions simply because you're assuming things, why not ask how they can help? And, rather You know what, forget it. This debate goes nowhere. It's achieved nothing. It's done nothing. It'll never accomplish anything. It'll never mean anything. Nothing we say here matters, it'll be forgotten in a matter of days. Nothing we say here will ever make anything change. We can't come up with even a partial solution, it's all or nothing. My way or the high way. If the literal fate of the world laid single-handedly on us coming up with an agreement, we'd screw it up. Everyone would die. Poof. Gone. Forever. This isn't about trying to come up with a solution, it's about letting the other side know they're wrong. We could sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker then we could convince one man by using logic.

In that case, you're just an outright liar and a hypocrite.

Okay? I didn't mention who's suggestion it was. I said you very clearly and explicitly stated that his idea would just make it worse: I provided reasoning for why it would most likely help, and not hurt the argument. And the best you could come up with in return was "It also wasn't my suggestion. Zaps brought it up." I don't give a damn if it came from the most hell-bent gun owner advocate on the planet, I'm open-minded enough to ponder if it'd work or not. You sat there accusing us of just trying to work around problems and not come up with actual solutions because we didn't want to do anything. The solution Zapatos proposed was to actively destroy guns. Yours was to not buy guns and ammunition. Which of those requires sitting and not doing anything?

That link has to do with customer service standards regarding internet maintenance. You're right. I meant to say journalist, that's my bad. Either way, still provide a link.

I'm too young to understand this I'd assume. Could you elaborate? Oh, come on. Your argument for it being pointless was not based on "You wouldn't do it yourself" it was very clearly based on "It would make the problem worse." Read below: When buying and destroying guns to take them off the streets makes the problem worse then just not buying them and letting them on the streets, I'll believe you. Your logic is "it makes sense to me, so it must be true." If masses of people were buying and destroying guns, do you not realize there'd be fewer people to buy guns? Especially if the people doing it are already gun owners?

If I want to confirm my (insert group you belong to) - related fears, I can find a news site just for that. And you are entirely correct, I could find a youtube channel for that. To address the two things you've put up: I can't even begin to explain. First, the white helmets. This "widely spread conspiracy" and "highly believed" is bullshit. One, if you read farther into the article, you'll realize the conspiracy was created by the media. Not social media, the media. Which, then gaining a lot of retweets, spread it to social media. I hardly feel it's fair to blame it on social media as the creation of this conspiracy, so I'll just let it go. Unless you refuse to accept it, in which case it's not a denial of facts on either of our parts, it's opinionated. I don't believe it's fair to blame social media for something started on mainstream media, while you think it's fair because ultimately it's social media that caused it to spread. Additionally, most of the news story was built around isolated tweets that didn't receive many retweets, likes, etc. Sure, a few hundred may sound like a lot, but when you account in bots, people who are already convinced, it's not like they're building massive followings as the article suggests. Second, those networks are crackpot conspiracy nuts. Neo-nazis existed pre-social media, there's no need to point it out. The fact that they're creating their own websites because social media doesn't allow them on it kind of proves it's own point. Make no mistake, I know for an absolute fact that there are terrible side effects from some social media users spreading false rumors. But there are also terrible side effects from mainstream media. On virtually everything. Hell, even something as small as the tide pod challenge was made almost 100 times worse because of mainstream media and required social media to help fix the problem. If you don't know what I'm talking about, just ask and I'll explain. The short story is that a few kids ate tide pods every week for a couple of years. Someone makes a joke about poisoning and casually mention they're going to eat tide pods from now on. Mainstream media latches onto this, presents it as a "massive trend"....... that they created. The number of kids eating tide pods intentionally went from typically 10-11 a week, to well over 1.5k of them. Again, if you'd like me to elaborate farther I can get out the numbers and that, it'll be a long and boring post, however. I am not intentionally leaving out evidence. As for social media being a breeding ground for radicalization, I'd like to point out that there hasn't been an

Because it's "not enough" I'd assume. Most of the gun debate in this thread seems to be revolving around this premise: Both sides are intelligent enough to realize something needs to change. One side wants gun control, and the other side wants.......gun control. However, one side doesn't want as much gun control as the other. Let's call that side 1. Side 2 wants more gun control then side 1. Side 1 proposes gun control, taking guns away, destroying guns, etc. Side 2 says that's not enough, opposes side 1, and then blames side 1 for being against gun control, not doing enough, and being the reason there isn't already better gun control. Do I think side 2 is doing it on purpose? No. I honestly believe both sides have the best of intentions. Both sides want to reduce gun violence. One side wants more measures than the other. However, that being said, surely we can agree on at least some gun control, even if it's not as much as Side 2 would like and more then Side 1 would like.

I'm certain if he had gotten the paperwork, he would have realized the massive sentence that could come from not filing it, and would have pointed it out in the video right before he sawed it in half. We can assume two things, he did or he didn't. For some reason I get the feeling he didn't.

Really? Man. I should start believing all those headlines saying an asteroid is going to crash into earth tomorrow and kill everyone. Provide an example of an anonymous YouTuber who has a devoted audience that's greater than mainstream media. To be fair, mainstream media is biased. Have you ever seen fox news? I would actively try to eliminate the influence of mainstream media. Because it's biased. Left or right, everyone has an agenda. And especially in America, everything is always painted as doom and gloom, because they get more views. Which is another problem. Mainstream media makes up headlines that are extremely misleading. I saw one that said the U.S. declared war on North Korea. Months ago. We're not at war. It's getting to the point I'd sooner believe a YouTuber who explains what he/she believes and why they believe it, over someone reciting a headline they read off of a news article. People are less likely to read an entire news article then they are to listen to someone explain an issue. Additionally, on youtube, the comments will call them out for outright lying and making misleading thumbnails/clickbait. To be fair, this has been a position for almost every older generation. "Look at all these younger people, look who their role models are, look what they support, look where they get their information from(first books, then radio, then tv, now the internet)" etc.

Exactly. I don't doubt that he actually got rid of it, he wasn't showing any major red flags of him lying in my opinion, but still.

He created an SBR, which stands for a short barrel rifle. So to be confused with an SRB, which is a solid rocket booster. Either way, you have to have a license to do so. I doubt he's going to be prosecuted unless he tries to shoot the thing, but legally you're not allowed to just saw one in half without the proper paperwork, etc because it can make the gun much more unstable, deadly, etc. I'm 15, and I'm saving for a house. I'll avoid buying an $800 AR-15, sawing it in half, and posting the video on youtube to make a point. That being said, if I had the money I would.

I said it applies to stupid, not to danger. I'll be negotiable on guns. I will not be swayed that making it a crime to say stupid stuff is a good idea. If the stupid stuff is dangerous, like yelling fire in a crowded theater, then fine.

The long-term is a small fraction of people entertain it in their minds for a while, an even smaller fraction of those people tell others about it, and an even smaller fraction of those people permanently believe it. That being said, those who do believe it most like believe other things like the Earth is flat, we didn't land on the moon, and that Bigfoot was the thing that stole their grilled cheese sandwich off the grill when they weren't looking. As for the "shot" term implication, it causes mild inconvenience to those who have to listen to those people who tell others, they'll almost all be convinced and set back on the correct path, and the smallest of those who can't be convinced by others will continue believing it along with all the other random conspiracy stuff they believe. There's virtually nothing we can do about. And in my opinion, nothing should be done about it. Always remember folks that free speech applies to stupid. Even that I'd disagree with. There are those who hold blogs, websites, social media accounts, etc, that spread stupid stuff, are anonymous, and make money. The vast majority of them don't. And even if you did take away their anonymity, people would probably still believe them. It'd be a hassle to enforce, pointless, and fruitless.

I got a lot of respect for that dude, however, literally on just the last 5 pages, you guys were bashing people who owned guns because they're "Fun to shoot" as idiots, insane, and "Americans." If you don't believe me, I will gladly go back and quote each of you who said it. For some reason, I doubt that the thing that changed his mind was screaming those things and that this mans video will convince a lot more people to give up their guns because it's not coming from a position of attack, but a position of comradery(if that makes any sense). Another note is the man who just made the video, he committed a federal crime.......

But it's so much more productive to just rail on people and accuse them of things rather than discuss what is and isn't useful. In all seriousness though, absolutely.

Alright, quote me where I put up an objection without providing a reason and I'll provide my reasoning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what penalties were there for not following the Paris climate agreement?

IMHO if we didn't have political parties, it would have been much harder for any collusion to happen in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the Russian Collusion appears to have been trying to split the democratic party supporters between Hillary and Bernie. If there had been no parties, there perhaps could have been an additional conservative candidate that would have opposed Trump on the conservative side of things, while Hillary and Bernie opposed each other on the liberal side of things.

Exactly. I'm not sure where there's a disconnect. Somewhere along the lines, you guys are interpreting what I'm saying as being against gun control, restricting assault weapons, etc, by saying it won't work. That's not what I'm doing, but if we're going to get anywhere we need to find a way to communicate better because this is clearly not working.

Perhaps. I don't know.

Yes. Like, say a post received 3 downvotes. People could see it, but it wouldn't affect said posters total reputation. Another thing. If we do try anything out, and it suddenly goes south, we can simply change it back.