Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "The Damage Report" channel.

Nice try, but you guys still have no case. Until you can point us to where Shapiro actually supported white supremacy, Naziism, or whatever you're trying to blame him for, it's just BS.
10
Walsh is right, actually. The "experts" have been making doomsday predictions for decades now that never came true. And disagreeing with transgenderism does not mean you hate, fear, or even dislike trans people. It's an incoherent worldview, and all Matt Walsh did was show (part of) the reason why.
10
She endorses Antifa. I couldn't care less what people call her.
5
And still neither of you can point out specifically where he supported white supremacy or Nazism.
4
If what she said was a lie, I find it odd that you guys couldn't provide proof of that. Nor do I think it follows that because she was paid by Turning Point USA (and is still paid by PragerU) that "she's only in it for the money". Fact is there's nothing wrong with getting paid to do something you were already doing and believe in. This is just another very poor attempt to assassinate her character. You should go back to chopping up audio clips of her talking about Hitler, lol.
4
@julieake3875 I didn't deny anything about Trump. I'm only just now hearing this allegation that he actually raped someone, and I'd gladly look at the evidence for that before commenting on it (which isn't the topic here). What's your evidence that Candace is trash? (BTW, excellent show of character, name-calling)
3
Bernie "White people don't know what it's like to be poor" Sanders
3
@alejandrocamacho9725 Lol, exactly! (or at least I'm assuming you're being sarcastic)
3
If what she said was a lie, I find it odd that you guys couldn't provide proof of that. Nor do I think it follows that because she was paid by Turning Point USA (and is still paid by PragerU) that "she's only in it for the money". Fact is there's nothing wrong with getting paid to do something you were already doing and believe in. This is just another very poor attempt to assassinate her character. You should go back to chopping up audio clips of her talking about Hitler, lol.
2
@kyblore Yes, even if you say she has poor character, you are at least agreeing she has some sort of character when you attack it (rolling eyes). With just the same type of empty rhetoric you're bringing here, in fact.
2
@TheLostArchangel666 "He himself did not." Well I thank you for being honest about at least that. "What he /did/, and still does, do, is provide a vital link in the downward spiral that leads towards such sentiments. Testimony of countless people that have escaped this "alt right pipeline", as it's been labelled here on the left, prove as much." But you (and I'm guessing they) are still being incredibly vague. What does this "vital link" look like? Aren't you really just saying that Shapiro and the alt-right have some views in common? "Seek out these things for yourself I suppose?" What do you think I'm doing right now, talking to you guys? :)
2
@TheLostArchangel666 But doesn't that just mean you're not really searching for the truth? That maybe you've just bought into what the radical leftists claim (about Shapiro and possibly others)? "I mostly stopped watching the popular atheist/"sceptic" youtubers when they collectively decided to jump on the alt right bandwagon for some reason, since their content simply didn't appeal to me anymore." I don't know what this could possibly be referring to, except maybe the Rationality Rules controversy. But what would be "alt right" about referring to what science has to say on the topic of transgendered people in sports?
2
@MrShanester117 So who is "they"? The only way I can see this working as almost a valid criticism of Shapiro, is if we're saying that the entire nation of Israel itself is on board with the killing of innocent people. But even then, what if he's against the killing of innocent people but for Israel prospering as a nation?
2
@MrShanester117 No, I'm simply asking you what you meant, and there's only one place I can get that information.
2
@arkcritic6080 "Sudden" as in when? People have been claiming these things (storms, droughts, etc.) are on a dramatic rise for at least a decade now, yet when you look at the data it simply doesn't support their assertions. For example, you can find the NOAA charts for "very wet/very dry" periods and see virtually no change since 1895. If anything it's gotten less dry in recent decades.
2
@arkcritic6080 Yes, that's why I brought it up. It's pretty much the same as it was back in 1895, and anyone can find that chart. When the droughts of 2012 occurred, the mainstream media was quick to use it as evidence of dangerous climate change. Yet, when everything returned to normal? Crickets.
2
@arkcritic6080 "It's hardly normal." Sure it is. I'm looking at the chart right now. It's actually less dry than it was in 1895. "When the conditions are right, these disasters happen." Okay, so what disasters? The drought angle didn't work. What else are you claiming is happening more on average than it was decades prior? "You didn't hear about the drought in India in 2013?" Again, that's an individual instance whereas we should be looking at averages. Just like the drought of 2012 in the U.S., shining a light on that one instance does nothing to establish a dangerous trend, much less one caused by climate change. "Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma in 2017 alone." A. Individual instances, once more. B. If you look at the data, averages once again seem to be about the same. And that's measuring ACE, not just the severity of the storms (Maue, 2015).
2
@arkcritic6080 "I don't get why you're obsessed with how wet or dry some place is." Not obsessed, just on topic. You brought up droughts as if they're on the rise when they're not. Showing that the amount of the U.S. which is very dry has not gone up (but has in fact gone down) is one way of rebutting that narrative. "There's a difference between rain over a period of time and water dumped by a hurricane, for example." Naturally those are two different questions, and I didn't confuse them. I addressed the drought narrative, and then I addressed the narrative about hurricanes. "Also, quite a lot of weather phenomenon are controlled by ocean temperatures." Okay, are we moving the goalpost to claiming the ocean temperatures are on the rise now? Because even if we did, we're seeing that droughts and hurricanes aren't on the rise, despite what one might predict based on the supposedly rising ocean temperatures alone. And your citations don't seem to contradict mine, which referred to specific studies showing neither narrative works. Take the first one for example. In its opening, it makes it clear it's grouping together disasters "related to a weather, climate or water hazard", so it's not even focusing in on weather events. It also mentions "improved reporting" as part of why we have "more" weather-related disasters. In other words, we might not be having more at all; they might just be reporting them more.
2
@arkcritic6080 "I wasn't just limiting it to droughts." I understand that. I just dealt with the droughts narrative first, by showing there is no upward trend of droughts after all. And what exact point in the EPA article is supposed to save this narrative that droughts are on an upward trend? If less of the country is dry, and more of it is wet, how does that = more drought? "Saying "nope, we should look at averages" is not a response." Lol, well it was part of the response. The rest of it was me directing you to the study that shows the averages contradict the narrative that droughts are increasing. "If the amount of water is the same but how it's distributed is different, that would be an issue." What do you mean by "distributed"? What exactly is your claim here? "droughts and hurricanes aren't on the rise" Are you being serious?" Yes, and I provided both charts to demonstrate my claim. By contrast, the articles you provided don't seem to contradict anything I've said. "You need to find more than just wetness/dryness." Not at all. If more of the country is very wet than before, this means there is less drought. Unless you're trying to say something's changed with how it's being "distributed" but in that case it wouldn't be a climate change problem; it would be on whoever made that change. "What other research of yours that say climate change is no big deal?" Lots, but you have your hands full already. I want to know how you get more drought while also covering more ground in water. I also want to know if you're conceding that hurricanes have not in fact been on the rise (or at least that you haven't found any evidence that they are). ""related to weather, climate or water hazard" Storms, floods, droughts and wildfires. All can be affected by weather." Right, but again, the article admits that it's grouping together not just disasters related to weather or climate but disasters related to water hazards as well (which may or may not be caused by weather or climate). And you didn't address the point about them saying reporting has been improved. If there's more reporting of x than previous years or decades, that doesn't mean there's more x than previous years or decades. It could just be that the same amount of x wasn't being reported before but now it is.
2
@arkcritic6080 "These are the ones I've found "World drought frequency, duration, and severity for 1951–2010" - RMetS"" You might ask yourself why you're finding smaller scale studies to contradict the 125-year study I first referenced. Furthermore, it's measuring rainfall which is associated with drought but isn't the whole picture (leaves out the factor of evapotranspiration, etc.). What I referenced is literally ground moisture or lack thereof, which is specifically what characterizes drought. ""Drought in numbers 2022" - UN" This one's covering an even smaller time period, 22 years. I can't help but wonder why, you know? It also doesn't cover the severity of droughts, which is very important. ""What do you mean by "distributed"?" It's the difference between having rain over a whole state vs heavy rain in one county and drought in another at the same time." Oh okay, well the study I referenced is talking about how much land is dry vs. wet. You get a larger average only if more land is wet/dry. "You already think that the dryness/wetness chart means there's no climate change." Not even close to what I said. Indeed, the chart I referenced shows climate change, and it shows a trend of less drought over the last 125 years.
2
@arkcritic6080 "Because your 125-year study is for the US only while the other one is for the world?" Yes, but is it your contention they couldn't find a study covering a longer period of time? To me, this smacks of the same trick I exposed in the beginning: zoom in on a small period of time so people won't see the bigger picture and realize there's no trend of dangerous climate change at all. ME: "Furthermore, it's measuring rainfall which is associated with drought but isn't the whole picture (leaves out the factor of evapotranspiration, etc.)." YOU: "Which study says that evapotranspiration is a cause of drought?" Not what I said. The point is that a lack of rainfall =/= drought, because there are other factors involved in that. ME: "It also doesn't cover the severity of droughts, which is very important." YOU: "Quote: "Severe drought affects Africa more than any other continent, with more than 300 events recorded in the past 100 years, accounting for 44 percent of the global total."" I'm talking about when it specifically says "The number and duration of droughts around the world have increased by an alarming 29% since 2000" (again, still a very tiny amount of time to try and draw catastrophic climate change conclusions on but nevermind). It doesn't say the severity of the droughts has increased. Even the first study you gave at least remembered to do that, despite its other flaws.
2
Oh noes! The self-described sex workers aren't going to be getting pregnant and killing babies anymore! :(
2
@rb032682 Okay, so you've repeated the assertion that Candace is lying. Now you just need to actually support it, which they failed to do in the video.
2
Sounds perfectly consistent to me. People are free to do whatever they want with their bodies so long as it doesn't harm another human being. That goes for women too.
2
Why not let the people who don't understand the value in separation of church and state (as our forefathers did) leave instead? I mean, did we not leave Europe specifically so government and church would no longer be one and the same? Once I realized we'd be talking about 'The Five" (complete with Bob Beckel and Eric Bolling, two of the stupidest people you could ever hope to hear from), I decided to keep watching. And you did a phenomenal job, man! Way to go.
1
@leoaguilar8684 No, it's pretty much a word-for-word quote. And I did watch the whole answer; it doesn't justify saying something so stupid.
1
Too right. They can't even substantiate their claims. Just another poor attempt to attack Candace personally.
1
See this nonsense refuted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC6z0-CfGwA
1
@Yungrexy It tells me something about logical fallacies and how easily they can be accepted and promoted. Now, would someone who hates x group of people be a fan of anyone who routinely criticized x group and/or their beliefs? Probably. A psycho's gotta come up with some justification for his evil act, after all. But in no way does that imply that criticizing a group of people with your words leads to other people attacking them with guns. And we should all be glad for that. I could wind up dead tomorrow and, by your logic, you'd be partly responsible so long as my killer said "I was inspired by watching Rex The Younger eviscerate him on YouTube!"
1
@joeymac4302 Where and when did Shapiro say that all Democrats want Socialism? Also, late-term abortions are essentially infanticide. Just because we pretend some magical transformation takes place during birth doesn't make it so, and it is absolutely the Democratic party who's increasingly OK with late-term, partial-birth, and even post-birth "abortions".
1
@joeymac4302 "It's not a magical transformation. It's a legal one. As in, they aren't considered "persons" by the government until they are born." So what? How does that have any impact at all on the moral implications of taking its life? "There are no post birth abortions." Technically no. But there was that governor talking about people sitting a baby on a table and just letting it die. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkTopSKo1xs "Also, We non-radicals believe a woman's right to abortion only goes through the first trimester, as laid out via Roe v. Wade." Which was still a pretty radical idea. Any line we might draw at which point it becomes a human life will be inconsistent with how we define it elsewhere. The only one that doesn't lead to contradictions is a line drawn at conception, when a unique genetic code is formed. "your assertion is false that the Democratic party is increasingly OK with partial birth abortions." In other words, you didn't know about the bill they were trying to pass not long ago. "Also, I don't document each time he says "democrats are pushing for socialism" on his daily show." That's not the claim you made earlier, which was that he said all Democrats want socialism... "his dehumanizing tweets. Which I note you didn't even bother trying to fight that one." I must've missed it, or I would've simply pointed out that, yet again, you're being conveniently vague about what Shapiro's allegedly done that's so bad.
1
@JH-rt9vy Check the link. They're discussing a proposed law for letting a newborn baby just die on the table. And the contradictions are everywhere. "Yeah but the embryo doesn't have a heartbeat", "Yeah but there's no brain activity", "Yeah but they're not breathing on their own". We keep people alive via machines all the time despite these systems not working. But show me a bundle of random cells or tissue with its own unique genetic code apart from its "host", go ahead.
1
@Yungrexy No no, you're the one who claimed it, you should be able to specify. But yes, I (and Shapiro himself) concede he lost that little debate for not being prepared.
1
@Yungrexy You do realize that the very phrase "dog whistling" is an admission that you don't have actual evidence, just this invisible/inaudible "thing" in the ether you've built a conspiracy theory around. Even granting what you said he did there, where is the white supremacy? Where is the Nazism? Seems to me that even assuming you've represented his actions accurately and didn't take anything out of context, we can indict him for being offensive. He firmly believes that because the politicians have the power to actually change policy they're who we should keep our eyes on the most. And we can agree or disagree with him on that, but name-calling isn't going to carry your burden of proof. But again, I'd like to know what your response would be if it were flipped around on you. What if one of these Antifa nuts assaulted someone and then said they were inspired by your words here on YouTube? What if the right started playing this game you started and accused you of dog whistling for radical leftists? Would you honestly take the blame for what they did?
1
@Yungrexy Well I'm obviously defending Shapiro from people claiming he's doing things he apparently isn't. If the best you have is "They're dog whistles, that's why we can't hear them!" then it's just as I said before: you have no case.
1
@joeymac4302 I didn't generalize all Democrats, you should read what I said more carefully. But thank you for the- what, nine-year old Tweet from Shapiro in which he fucks up. Still doesn't transfer the blame from a violent shooter to a person doing the opposite. If these people were really following Shapiro, they'd have the guts to get on a stage and debate people on these topics; they wouldn't try to kill anyone.
1
@arkcritic6080 We were discussing droughts and hurricanes, as these were the first things you thought were on the rise. Not temperature or rainfall which, again, does not necessarily tell you if droughts are increasing. And I'd like an answer to my question first: Is it your contention they couldn't find a study covering a longer period of time? Something like my 125-year study?
1
Jiminy Cricket No, I wouldn't want to be with a woman who thought of sex as a bargaining chip, not even temporarily.
1