You don't need to "parse" it. It's already written out for you

No, I meant… extract the transcript from whatever weird XML / JSON format YouTube serves it to the client as.

Then you ARE a SCHILL, intentionally ignoring evidence to be ignorant ON PURPOSE.

I said that it probably wouldn't convince me – not that I would ignore it. It was a prediction, not a declaration of intent; sorry for the vagueness. A more detailed explanation of my intent: Unless you think that this video contains all the reasons you think that way, laid out with enough (externally-verifiable) evidence to support all the necessary claims (which I wouldn't know, since I don't know what's in it), it wouldn't make me as certain as you are – and that might not be enough certainty to think it more likely than not (my standard for “convinced”). It'd probably make me more certain (I've already updated on that probably, but I think you'd think, given what I know about what I know, that knowing what the video says will make me more certain still, which is the correct thing to think if you have a justified reason to be more sure about how much the contents of the video will persuade me (e.g. knowing what the video says, and having the contents of the video containing a lot of persuasive evidence).)

when you can't even acknowledge that the legitimizing process and all the media and governments are corrupt as fuck.

Since I led you to believe that, I've experienced the issues of such legitimising first-hand. Not with any malice involved, I don't think – but maybe I'm still just naïve on that matter.

The fact you believe something isn't enough for me to believe it (though it does affect my beliefs a little). Plenty of people around me believe all sorts of things, but them believing them isn't strong evidence for them. Yeah, if I refused to watch it because it was an “unreliable source”, that'd be pompous…

I don't know what you mean with your Stallman reference, beyond the obvious: The sky is falling and no one cares.

Pretty much. But unlike Cassandra, you're not cursed; just not as good at convincing people as you'd need to be. For most of your claims (probably a superset of the ones I agree with you about… I'm just not sure which are the extra ones), you have enough information to convince other people, but your presentation isn't good enough.

We're in a manufactured crisis scamdemic while propaganda, shills, idiots, and sheeple refuse to see their world collapsing into this totalitarian "new normal" tyranny bullshit.

That's just one of the issues. Yeah, it's important, but other people might care more about different ones. Imo, your aim shouldn't be to try to convince people; it should be to foster the behaviour that prevents this from happening. Go a level below (or above… not sure what the proper metaphorical direction is).

Other than my occasional ventures over to Saidit, I don't need to know who's doing what, what the latest plot to hurt everyone is, who's chucking barrels of DDT into the ocean. All I need to do is behave in a way that makes that stuff slightly less effective. The only reason I come here is to check whether that still lines up with what you think – because as hard as it is for me to believe some of the things you're saying, in the past you've known better than I what needs to be done (even if you haven't explicitly identified it). (More than I can say for some; you're one of the ~five Saiditors I actually respect.)

I've always been curious about that book, but not enough to read it. Maybe I'm naive or pretending I'm too virtuous or something, but it seems like it might be a slimy manipulation gimmick manual for used car salesmen and desperate horny men.

That's the same reason I haven't read it – but from what I hear, it's actually a good book. (It certainly doesn't contain dating / “dating” advice; I've heard far too many pick-up “artists” complaining about that.)