Hacker News Reader

I don't agree with everything you've said, but I agree with the core idea: that most of the people on the right (maybe not most of the people at the protests, but surely some) are misguided, and not fundamentally evil.

They fundamentally want the same things as the rest of us: peace, freedom, prosperity, etc. Most of them are not racists (even if they end up on the same half of the political spectrum as the racists). They do not desire tyranny, they think they're fighting it.

And finally, there's a fundamental willing-ignorance on the left when it comes to actually understanding these people. Even if you think they need to be stopped - heck, even if you think they are fundamentally evil - you have to be willing to look at where they're coming from, and what's motivating them, if you want to be able to deal with the situation in any remotely effective way. And yet there's this extreme hostility to the very idea that these people could ever be understood as anything more than demons with pitchforks and pointy tails.

They've been pushed and warped by fearful emotions, and economic hardship, and incendiary rhetoric and misinformation (some of which comes from sources that definitely know exactly what they're doing and are not simply misguided). And there's a debate to be had as to how many and to what degree they can be walked back from the brink of extremism at this point. But at the bottom of it all, they are people. And we will never make progress - whether you see progress as unity or simply as the disarming of a movement - until we start trying to understand.

It seems like some on the left think that listening to offensive ideas is the same as endorsing them. People in general are good at pointing out the flaws in others while ignoring the same thing in themselves.

There's endorsing ideas, there's considering ideas, and I would add a third tier: sympathizing with a person's legitimately-felt experiences, despite whatever ideas may have grown on top of them

Everyone thinks they're the good guy. Even the guy breaking into Congress with weapons and zip ties. Even Sarah Palin claiming this is all an antifa setup to make Trumpists look bad. I'll go further (Edit: is this what's causing the downvotes? Prove me wrong!): even the ISIS henchman slicing heads off, even the suicide bomber walking into a crowded market to blow themselves up, they all think they're the good guy and have (from their pov) great reasons that one should try to understand. And just because you understand their point of view doesn't mean you have to stick to reasonable discussion when dealing with them. Some things demand action.

a) Not everyone thinks they're the good guy; some genuinely don't care. But yes, probably all of the people you mention do think that.

b) Nobody said that understanding, or even compassion, is mutually exclusive with action. I can seek to understand why the goat-herder was pushed to extremism at a systematic level (which could inform policy changes that mitigate the problem at the source), and even feel compassion for that original hardship, without condoning his later actions. I can even do so while supporting the use of force to stop him. These are all separate questions.

Uncomfortable, but true. Very few people wake up and seek to do evil.

German people in WW1 and WW2 also thought they were doing the right thing by invading other European countries. I guess they were "misguided", as you say.

These people were well-understood by government, who listened to their imperialist and racist demands.

Well, the rest of Europe defended themselves through alliances and coordinated military planning, and the USA did their job to bomb the authoritarian regime back to their place.

Today's "misguided" Trump extremists are part of a very big group of Trump supporters, who might very well turn the USA into a less-globalist, more authoritarian regime. Perhaps imperialist.

In this case, the best for the world would be to quickly disable US military power, ideally with precise nuclear strikes.

Nobody in this scenario is "fundamentally evil". But that doesn't mean we can solve all conflicts by "understanding these people". This is about which side / ideology has the most power.

Power is what really matters. The USA is seen as the good guys today because they were powerful in WW2. If Germany had gotten their way, they would be the good guys, and USA the evil ones.

> Politicians for supporting violent rioters and arsonists all summer

Could you link me to politicians that supported violent rioters?

> Cutting off their access to places like twitter will not calm their insanity. It will fuel it when the ONLY voices they are now hearing are the most radical ones. Completely insane people like Lin Wood are now where these people will be getting their information.

I think the primary reason for banning these people is that no sane person wants to see unhinged tweets in their feed on a daily basis. And they don't want these people commenting on their tweets either. Those that are banned should move on and learn from this experience.

> I wish people would slow down, step back for a moment and try to choose the paths that will result in deescalation. Not further radicalization. It's extremely frightening and depressing to watch this happen.

There are plenty of domestic terrorists that never used Twitter. The perceived grievance always runs much deeper than a medium of communication.

Completely true that twitter and Facebook were being used as right wing echo chambers. But you fail to mention that's literally by design. Twitter/Facebook etc were completely complicit in all this until recently, their chronic inaction lead to the buildup of right wing radicalism.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XxLR2r5oPg

Kamala Harris on the ongoing riots "Everybody should know that they're not goign to stop. And they should not. And we should not."

The tweet says: "The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable.

Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows.

To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point."

I don't take this to mean that she supports rioting and looting.

AOC and Harris both referred to protests and not riots. The YouTube link you posted is mislabeled. I think you should edit your post if you can't back it up with a source.

I didn’t hear a peep from them about the violence. And silence is complicity right?

I mean Biden kept getting direct questions about the violence and he refused to condemn it until it got so bad it was hurting him in the polls.

Just like the Right is trying to explain away the Capitol Riots the left tried explain away the Antifa riots.

Please point out where AOC promotes violence in those tweets.

First, just know that I support most of what you're saying in your initial comment on this thread.

In response to:

"Could you link me to politicians that supported violent rioters?"

You provided two links. This is the tweet:

"The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable.

Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows.

To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point."

As others have noted, there's nothing there about violence or riots.

However, the more important point is comparing what AOC and others have said with what Trump said at the rally on Tuesday:

"Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down--

We're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol--

And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.

We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

He said a lot more, but I don't see anything there about riots or violence.

BUT THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. Trump and his enablers have been carefully and meticulously lying about this the election.

I'm not saying AOC and other progressive leaders haven't lied about stuff. I have little doubt that they have.

But there's a fundamental difference in the magnitude and implication here.

While Trump no doubt choose his language very carefully to not cross a particular, bright line, the net effect of everything he and his enablers have done have crossed that bright line.

It's admirable that you're trying to give HN a glimpse into the actual mind of a MAGApede, rather than the media-constructed caricature.

But you'll find that the people here largely don't want to actually understand. Flyover rubes are to be put against the wall, not heard.

What's your plan, then? It is clear that some people are so far gone that logic and reason are no longer effective methods of reaching them.

There is now a claim that under sworn affidavit an Italian national has admitted to changing votes via a military satellite (what?!). Never mind that all the sources link back to each other, never mind that any self respecting shadow deepstate would simply disappear someone like that. It doesn't make any sense, and yet.. it's getting traction. Most of the claims that have people whipped up into a frenzy about a stolen election are equally as baseless in the face of literally zero evidence.

And yet, here we are.

The government shouldn’t want to be the thought police. These people are going to keep believing crazy conspiracies and nothing we say is going to change their mind. What we can do is call out lying, take away large platforms for spreading lies, and prevent radicalization by giving everyone the freedom to say what they think and to have a place to do it. Banning these people from Twitter is just going to reinforce their victimhood mentality that the deep state controls the world.

On the whole people these days need to spend less time trying to change other people’s minds and more time trying to understand them, even if what they believe is wrong.

> What we can do is call out lying

Plenty of people and organizations have been doing this the last four years and even before that.

>take away large platforms for spreading lies

... what would you say has been going on the last several days? Are you suggesting we shut down FB, Twitter, etc. entirely? Or, are you suggesting we moderate lie-spreading? Because according to the logic you've laid out, that will just feed into the victim hood mentality

To be frank, I'm coming into this in good faith. I actually have waffled and entertained the thoughts you're suggesting over the last couple of days and while they're worth considering, I don't think they are acceptable solutions.

Some have been calling out the lies and that has helped mitigate the damage. Taking away platforms can mean many different things, but on a personal level it means refusing to interact with clickbait. No solution will fix every issue or create a utopia where everybody believes the truth, I see no evidence that that world is even possible with all we know about human nature.

> This is illegal, and should be heard by a court. Maybe you think it was! But they don't.

Right, and this is the core of the issue. They were. That's a fact. You're saying "kowtow to people who are unwilling to accept reality and instead grasp onto increasingly violent conspiracy theories". I don't know what to do with that.

Conciliatory approaches haven't worked, in fact they've made things worse as they've allowed people to further radicalize.

> Completely insane people like Lin Wood are now where these people will be getting their information.

He was their source of information prior to any deplatforming. They were already only listening to the most insane voices. That's how we got here.

Removing the most insane elements is deradicalization. Showing people that actions have consequences is deradicalization. Refusing to kowtow is deradicalization. Anything else further emboldens those willing to share the conspiracies.

Really? Which court heard these grievances? The only court with the actual jurisdiction to hear them, The SCOTUS, dismissed the only case brought before them about it on "standing".

And before you claim that it was absurd to even ask the court to hear the case at all: two of the justices, who I can promise have a better understanding of constitutional law than anybody posting on hacker news, argued to hear the case.

It wasn't heard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...

Here's a summary of the cases. I'll note some of the summaries of the various specific cases that were dismissed due to lack of evidence:

- Arizona, Bowyer v. Ducey : The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing; their fraud allegations were vague and implausible, and their evidence was unreliable or irrelevant. The judge singled out the fraud allegations being put forth, writing that they "fail in their particularity and plausibility". The judge ruled that there would be "extreme, and entirely unprecedented" harm to Arizona's 3+ million voters to entertain the lawsuit "at this late date".

- Arizona, Ward v. Jackson: Arizona Supreme Court rejected her appeal, concluding that Ward presented no evidence of misconduct

- Georgia: The judge ruled that no evidence had been produced that the ballots were late

- Georgia: The judge stated that Wood failed to show that he had been harmed, while his proposal would "harm the public in countless ways". The Trump-appointed judge concluded that there was "no basis in fact or in law" to stop Georgia's certification of its election results (in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump) at such a late stage, as this would "breed confusion and potential disenfranchisement"

- Michigan: Chief Judge Timothy Kenny denied the motion for injunctive relief on November 6, finding that the plaintiffs did "not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions ... Plaintiffs' allegation is mere speculation. Plaintiffs' pleadings do not set forth a cause of action." The judge noted that "sinister, fraudulent motives" were alleged, but that the "plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible".

- Minnesota: The court's decision to dismiss was based partly on the grounds that petitioners should have filed suit earlier. "Given the undisputed public record regarding the suspension of the witness requirement for absentee and mail ballots, petitioners had a duty to act well before November 3, 2020," the ruling states. It goes on to say that "asserting these claims 2 months after voting started, 3 weeks after voting ended, and less than 24 hours before the State Canvassing Board met to certify the election results is unreasonable." (Read as: If this was a concern over the law, it should have been filed pre-election, This was only filed because they lost)

- Pennsylvania: The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the board to count over 2,200 ballots that lacked a date or voter address, or were not sealed with secrecy sleeves, claiming the votes are invalid. The lawyers for the Trump campaign have signed an agreement that they "do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots." They also declared that they were not alleging votes from dead people, "misconduct", or "impropriety" related to those ballots, and had no evidence of such happenings.

- Pennsylvania: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled 5–2 on November 17 against the Trump campaign, saying Pennsylvania law requires only that observers must be allowed in the room where ballots are counted but does not set a minimum distance between them and the counting tables; local county officials are left to decide.

- Pennsylvania: Judge Matthew W. Brann dismissed the case with prejudice on November 21, citing "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations", noting that "[i]n the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state ... [o]ur people, laws and institutions demand more".

Need I continue?

> two of the justices

The same two justices noted that the the relief being requested by the trump campaign weren't possible, so it wouldn't matter anyway.

I share your interpretations on this and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills when talking to anyone who has become too attached to their beliefs and views.

I’m predicting that the paths that seem like the “correct” ones are the ones that actually do cause further division. The stoic intuition of slowdown and evaluate does not seem to be on the table anymore...

> If you want to familiarize yourself with their thinking, I would recommend reading The Gulag Archipeligo.

Give me a break. These people probably think Solzhenitsyn was a power forward for the Red Wings in the 90’s.

> 1) The president of the united states effectively silenced.

By “silenced” I assume you mean “could step in front of a microphone and have his words broadcast live on every network”?

> 2) Calls for the imprisonment of you and your family for thoughtcrime.

Who is calling for this? People are calling for the rioters to be charged, sure. For crime crime, not thoughtcrime.

I'm reading Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago now and I wholeheartedly recommend people read it as well.

I think people understand what they think to some extent, but clearly the "soft glove" approach isn't working. Look at the last 4 years, glaring issue after issue that has been roundly ignored, gaslighted and no compromise has been reached. Election security, Russia, China, any kind of foreign policy decision, any kind of domestic issue. Ideas that should be fundamentals of democracy are being attacked.

These are the discussions that make sense. From there it easily devolves into Soros conspiracies, Pizzagate and 5G brainwashing myths. The QAnon insanity is just the latest of a long line of completely disconnected thinking.

The consequence of not pushing back has done irreparable harm to this country and part of the reason we're in this situation in the first place. Trying to be soft on this insanity is why people are now dead.

Will they be radicalized? Possibly. Will they be thrown in jail if they act out or start a low boil insurgency? Absolutely.

But if they're so far gone that they believe that storming government buildings is "taking back their country" then they need a hard reality check.

edit: I mean look at this: https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1348745936499982339

We're so far gone from acceptable societal behavior at this point.

> The consequence of not pushing back has done irreparable harm to this country...

Have you watched mainstream news sources over the last 4 or 5 years? Everything that Trump has done (for better or worse) has been met with constant pushback and criticism.

Even when he does something that everyone should see as a good thing (like multiple Middle-East peace deals), they find something to criticize about.

> The people who stormed into the capitol believe that they were doing so as a part of a fight against fascism

This is wishful thinking. These people are deeply angry and frustrated because they think an overwhelming election win has been stolen from them. They're deeply mired in denial, and in a totally self-serving way. This is crystal clear if you look at what they actually write on their platforms.

At some point, they need to get a clue and realize that further radicalization along these lines will not be helpful to them, and that the worthwhile battle against the new "fascism" they decry should be fought elsewhere, such as by working to restore the values of constitutional, limited government and protection of fundamental freedoms.

This also means actively de-escalating and stepping back from many of their most populist and most irrational political stances - but that's only to be expected.

Failing to hold people accountable for their actions does not radicalize people, but teaches them to correct their behaviors. Maybe if this guy's parents had done it when he was younger he wouldn't have found himself on a no fly list.

Your argument would hold more weight if you could show us how to deescalate one person down from "Hang Mike Pence" to "ok yeah I was wrong actually Biden won"; until then, the question is back on you - how do you even deescalate with folks in that "never concede" mindset?

You also have to ask yourself, even if deescalation was possible, at what point do you stop reasoning with people and lay down boundaries? Had the insurrectionists managed to, as some of them were ostensibly prepared for, physically harm elected representatives or the VP, then would you say, I understand this might even radicalize you, but I have to stop you? Or even in the face of exactions would you say, ooh, no, we better not antagonize these people, tech should continue giving them support to organize a violent uprising, etc.?

If your answer is "do nothing" then ask yourself what would cause you to act...

The answer for de-escalation is not simple. It starts with empathy, and recognizing our common humanity. These are human beings. Genetically, we are all very very similar. We all have similar drives. We need water, food, security. We desire belonging, love. We aspire to have sufficient social status within our communities.

I'm generalizing here, but the purveyors of a lot of this are not society's winners. In mainstream society, they have low social status. They're financially not well off. They are uneducated. They are mocked in mainstream culture, and called 'trash'. They are targeted by urban/educated/white people as the true racists and causes of our problems in this country. Many of these people were not born with the deck in their favor, and society just keeps crapping on them.

The answer isn't to accept or condone anti-social behavior from society's losers. The answer is to empathize with their situation, and figure out how to create a more inclusive society that creates an easier path for those born in the lower classes to find purpose/value/love/status within the communities. To not mock them because it's funny/entertaining to pick on the losers of society to make ourselves feel better.

What is particularly difficult here is that the election is not the source of the problem, it was just the straw that broke the camels back (so to speak).

Even if the election results were accepted as 100% correct by everyone, the grievances pre-date the election and even Trump's entire term in office. Trump used those grievances to get elected in the first place. They aren't going away because Trump goes away.

I wish I had some good words of wisdom at this point but the only thing I'm sure of is that if Congress goes ahead and attempts to impeach Trump things will get worse not better, it will make him a figurative martyr.

The best thing that could happen would be for Biden and Trump to somehow suck it up and come out and jointly make a speech urging everyone to take a deep-f*ing breath and perhaps add a joint to go along with everyone's stimulus check.

Thank you for saying this. It is rare in urban/educated/elite circles to have empathy and try to understand this particular group of our fellow humans.

Why is it expected of others to be the adult and try to understand these people, to pick up the garbage after these people, etc.?

Interesting points and good to hear them. But I have to say it seems to me a bit like whataboutism - let the poor guys go, they aren't so bad and we should all now strive for peace. In Europe if you riot at a football (soccer) game you'll get charges, on a no fly list, on a watchlist, possibly banned from certain cities during contentious games for the coming decade. I don't know how the US handles similar cases, but would you not want a response to those guys? I can storm the house of government and then travel home because it might radicalise my social circle if I face consequences? Sorry but that's just absurd and if you think this logic through I can't see how anyone can come to this conclusion: radicals of any colour should not face consequences for being part of violent acts because it might radicalise them further.

What seems quite obvious from an outside perspective is that these folks just aren't used to seeing consequences. They cheer on when 'the other side' faces them, say protestors at a BLM protest get brutalised by police, even if the individual ones that get beaten/arrested/... did nothing wrong. But they have never experienced what it's like if the state objects to what they are doing. Now they see some rather measured responses and immediately cry foul. And I'd stress measured response as - again looking from the outside with no stake in this fight - the images are so strikingly different. For instance I haven't seen any images of police violence from the capitol attack - total difference to BLM protests where the most vivid images were usually an army of policemen in riot gear and batons advancing towards the protestors. At the capitol it seems the only time police was violent was to prevent entry to the building, which the protestors were trying/ultimately succeeded to enter.

Fully agree. I think the best outcome of this situation would be Biden pardoning all involved and working to bring the country together. I supremely do not want this to turn into some sort of football game whereby the dems now have control of the ball and need to go on the offensive instead of just throwing the ball down and quitting the game. (to be clear, I'm a lifelong democrat, I just don't want 4 more years of the same infighting)

If you pardon the insurrectionists, you guarantee another insurrection. Actions require consequences. You can't have unity and healing without accountability first.

> Actions require consequences.

So what happens when dems launch a counteraction? Well that's an action, it has "action" right in the name. And actions require consequences, so looks like reps are going to have to launch their own counteraction. And so on and so on for all eternity. That's the ball game.

What I'm saying is we need someone in power to drop the ball and leave the stadium. Someone to say "wrongs have been committed but fuck it -- its more important to the country for everyone to get back together than it is to strike back in revenge". And suddenly the reps have no more action enacted against them. And thus no more consequence is required to be enacted from their side.

The idea that we need a spectacle of constant political brawl to keep the public entertained doesn't need to be true.

Thats my endgame. Whats yours?

If the Left were to stop playing the game, the Right would destroy the entire idea of games.

Marginalized people don't have a choice. They don't get to quit and go home. The fact that you see "quit while you're ahead" as an option means your privilege is preventing you from seeing how far behind the majority of the people are.

The paradox of tolerance is that tolerating the intolerant will lead to the destruction of tolerance by the intolerant.

So no, let's not let the insurrectionists get off scot free. Let's crush their intolerance and "supremacy" out of existence.

That's my endgame.

in addition, pardon anyone who participated in riots throughout 2020, unless they killed or maimed someone directly.

Can you imagine what an incredible thing it would be if Trump's final act was a speech that basically said:

"Everybody charged with a crime related to rioting during the BLM protests over the summer is pardoned. Additionally, everybody charged with a crime during the Capitol riots is also pardoned. It is a time for our nation to heal, and I hope that this can be a small step in that direction".

It's more likely Trump will only pardon the domestic terrorists. He likes to sow division, remember?

That's not very smart.

Why not?

So what would you suggest? Insurrection cannot be left with no response. Their "movement" is entirely based on lies. I understand that you're trying to get people to "think like them" but it's also paving over the vast gap between reality and delusion that these people have. They have been emboldened to do very stupid things in very public places and that can't be allowed to stand, or society will collapse under their stupidity. Just imagine being on an airplane with a bunch of ravenous Trumpers and they get into some argument with some liberal. Violence is contagious in a big group (as has been proven time and time again. The Capitol riot is a great example, the violence was started by a relatively small few) and people will do despicable things if their social surroundings deem it ok. Society, as a whole, needs to excise this despicable behavior or it will be consumed by it.

You don’t excise it by lumping all “Trumpers” together as a single group, thats part of the point being made. Censoring their thought leader is effectively a manifestation of this dichotomous thinking.

Divide and conquer. Steel man the arguments and destroy them in public. Don’t overgeneralize.

Here are 3 tools to use that don’t involve violence or censorship.

> The people who stormed into the capitol believe that they were doing so as a part of a fight against fascism, and I am now starting to think that a lot of my left wing friends simply don't understand what these people think.

I think this is wishful thinking. Somehow I trust more this explanation: https://mobile.twitter.com/SlavaMalamud/status/1347378198359...

Im sorry, but this is a part of the problem. You cannot distill an entire group of people down into a 180 character post on twitter. THAT is what got us into this mess.

Go meet some conservatives in real life. They aren't the monsters those 180 characters describe.

edit: Ahh I see. So white people are all just a bunch of self important demons. I can assure you that "$foo racial group are all illegitimate and if we can reeducate them or get rid of them it will all get better" is not a path that has historically led to peace.

I know a lot of conservatives in real life.

At best, there has been some hand wringing and sheepish questioning of their stance. At worst, a fair few of them have dug in. My own mother is well on the path to becoming, for lack of a better term, radicalized. She's completely lost the ability to think critically.

Being mad is powerful. Not thinking for yourself is easy. Tapping into both of those tendencies is dangerous.

The Republican party (vs "conservatism") is in a slow and gradual decline. It's not an overnight "all republicans are radicals" but the victimization mentality that's been going on for decades in certain sectors, and the "we're in a war for our soul" punditry right-wing echo chamber.

"The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" is one of my go-to references here, that book describes very well what I've seen in my friends and family.

> I can assure you that "$foo racial group are all illegitimate and if we can reeducate them or get rid of them it will all get better" is not a path that has historically led to peace.

For instance, if one were to point out that this was the policy of the US itself for westward expansion, Republicans would likely complain about un-patriotic America-hating because so many people have lost the ability to hold a more nuanced position beyond "AMERICA GOOD."

> The Republican party (vs "conservatism") is in a slow and gradual decline.

Or is it america, especially the younger generation, that is gradually becoming more leftist?

Realize that this movement you see could be due to your own displacement.

The thread is several pages long, not 180 characters.

The gap between the coastal and flyover cities is too great I'm afraid. What bridge can someone possibly build? Each looks at one another as the enemy of the country and the singular reason for all of their perceived problems with America.

I gotta say, if a divided country was the goal of a foreign adversary, they've exceeded in ways no one ever thought possible.

We have to keep talking to each other, we have to hold each other to a high standard, we have to recognize the profit motives of large media companies and we have to stop trying to demonize groups of people we don't like.

If we keep on this path, it only gets worse.

The people who violently attacked the capitol building had grievances that weren't true. Watch Mitt Romney's speech to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFj2Br8nxoc