"You say that like it makes any of it better."

It doesn't make it better, my intent was to show how BTC had edited out portions of PragerU's video in such a manner as to provide an incomplete picture.

PragerU's video provided an incomplete picture of Columbus and BTC provided an incomplete picture of PragerU's video.

Well, let's be honest with ourselves and each other here: One of the most defining traits of the political right is that they'll twist every fact that sounds even remotely true to justify their unwillingness to do what is right. As far as they're concerned, they will go with whatever answer relieves them of any responsibility or ensures they aren't forced to do anything against their will.

That's the entire crux of their political view. All the freedom, none of the responsibility that comes with it.  Their liberty is absolute, even at the expense of all else. 

To be fair, Republicans are the ones that want the bible taught in science class, so it's not like 'facts' or 'reality' really play a part in their goals. 

I think you will enjoy this clip of Whoopi Goldberg calling Republicans stupid and saying she hates Republicans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGl1CCprCeU

Any portion of a bigger thing is going to be an incomplete picture. 20 seconds of a 13 minute video is an incomplete picture. A single paragraph out of a book is an incomplete picture. 

If something is problematic, you don't have to show the entire context to know if it's bad. Unless the overall context is something like "oh this is what bad people think:", or "this is an example of something that's wrong", nothing changes. 

People constantly "edit out" portions of things, because you don't usually need to understand the entire context to understand if something is problematic. 

There are entire businesses who are predicated on summarizing content so you get the important stuff. That's what search engines do, that's what a lot of a journalism is about. That's what a large chunk of social media does. A lot of people work very hard to give you just enough context to understand what is going on.

Cutting content, "giving an incomplete picture" means absolutely nothing. 

Cutting content in a way that completely changes the meaning of the subject, that is a serious subject. That is a serious moral failing. But that's not what happened here. As I said, the full context makes Prager U look even worse.

I'm completely unsure what you think your point is here. 

But it should be the hill he dies on.

Just how many times more do you guys want to go through the same cycle. There is intentionally no question mark.

The regular users know it's bullshit. The moderators know it's bullshit. KLAMarine himself knows that it's bullshit. Literally everyone knows it.

Here's some videos specifically about PragerU Kids:

But nobody is putting, or even trying to put, BTC's videos in classroom instruction.

California Store Owner Shot Dead For Displaying Pride Flag

"A California clothing store owner and designer was killed allegedly by a gunman who confronted her about a rainbow Pride flag outside her business and shot her after making disparaging remarks about the display, according to police.

Laura Ann Carleton, a married mother of nine children, was killed Friday outside her clothing store in Cedar Glen, an unincorporated San Bernardino County community on the shores of Lake Arrowhead, according to a statement from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office."


Even being an ally can get you killed in this country.

Continuing this conversation from the Russia/Ukraine thread, because it's more relevant here. Not that it deserves to be talked about more.

1.) If I say "Cars go fast", does that mean "Every car goes fast", "Most cars go fast", "A lot of cars go fast", "Some cars go fast", "No cars go fast"?

You're insisting that my comment must mean the first one. I think it's reasonable to assume it's one of the first three from a linguistic standpoint. It's obviously not the last one, it probably isn't the second to last one. There is an ambiguity of quantity there, but I think you'd find that most native English speakers would have the line somewhere in the first three, certainly not the last 2, but the first 3 are reasonable interpretations. 

2.) "if Christians actually did half of what they're supposed to believe in" is also not the same thing as "Christians are bad/evil." Heck, admitting that Christians aren't perfect and aren't always doing the things that they're supposed to believe in, is pretty much a requirement for being Christian. It's like half the basis of the religion (that all people are sinful/imperfect/etc.)

3.) I will definitely say it was a jerk move to question your English. It's a very broad internet, and it's pretty easy for people to have different interpretations on what something means. There are even religions built on that. But I have to ask, because you're making strange rigid interpretations while completely ignoring large parts of text; and if it were some kind of language barrier it might be helpful for me to try phrasing things differently. 

I probably wouldn't even think about it a second time. Because it's a pretty obvious statement. Quite a few people are hypocrites, and the world would be a better place if people actually acted on the things that they claimed to believe in.

Same goes for NIMBY liberals and socialists, if only they were able to live up to 75% of the things they claimed to believe in, instead of being selective and saying they want those things, but not in their area.