Youtube comments of Oblithian (@Oblithian).
-
840
-
597
-
532
-
414
-
379
-
378
-
365
-
355
-
351
-
315
-
309
-
306
-
306
-
285
-
273
-
256
-
243
-
235
-
230
-
230
-
228
-
228
-
227
-
226
-
This is it is so annoying to have interactions with some "feminists".
You open a door, "Actually, I can hold a door you misogynist", "...uhh, you know there were about 6 guys I held it for before you right? and it didn't hurt their 'man feelings' at all, they actually said 'thank you!'"
You offer to serve them pie after just taking a slice yourself (rage) "I can do it!", (total confusion)"...I know you can, but I was just being polite" (scoff) "the arrogance, women don't need to be babied".
You ask them if they want a hand with a mound of boxes, "You don't think I can carry boxes!?" "can't everyone? I was just going to try to make a stranger's life easier"
...Then they later go on and on about how men are so inferior and insecure that they can't ask for or accept help from a woman. (Some probably are, but unlike them most people know everyone is not a stereotype. Just like not all self-proclaimed feminists act like this.)
217
-
195
-
173
-
170
-
141
-
139
-
136
-
130
-
128
-
126
-
125
-
122
-
122
-
120
-
120
-
111
-
105
-
105
-
101
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
90
-
89
-
88
-
86
-
84
-
80
-
77
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
71
-
71
-
69
-
68
-
66
-
66
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
This is why I don't approve of the shift in the US (which speead globally from there) back in the mid 2010s towards a mass employment of labels. (which we are finally starting to move away from, until someone makes a concerted effort to push a new one again)
Both sides labeled the other with sweeping stereotypes that applied only to a rare few. Using them as straw man arguments to try to dismiss any and all valid arguments against their points of view. Which served to alienate people who didn't support either side fully and make each side more extreme. Simultaneously both sides scapegoated those new labels as the source of all their problems. Millenials, boomers, SJWs, Alt-right, Nazis, trumpists, libtards, incels, feminist, colonizer, even democrat or republican. people sought binaries in a world where most topics are largely independent, and opnions diverse.
I would not say it is anywhere near as bad as during the holocaust but it could have (and still could) go that way. It started out very similarly, radicalizing groups against eachother.
Basically the unprepared public got a wave of the tactics used by extremist groups to radicalize people and they didn't have the prior experience of knowing what they're like or how they operate. Which both increased the numbers of legitimate extremists and had a lot of people who had/have to learn to sort through the BS and pick out the sliver of truth.
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
@justiceandliberty9724 So you admit he didn't make it great in this last term? What evidence is there that he will this time?
The dude, failed on his campaign promises. The man didn't go his own way, he just adopted the republican plans. He claimed he would hire the best people and "drain the swamp", but has instead fired dozens of people he initially touted as great and later called incompetent (a diligent/competent leader can hire good employees, he has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot.). He even still has people currently working for him who he has recently stated aren't great, and he knowingly hired people who are literally criminals. More importantly for hard working middle class america, he has caused endless problems for farmers and labourers with his illconcieved tarrifs and trade blunders. He didn't give substantial cuts to people who weren't the hard working middle class. He promised not to cut medicare, but would expand it; he instead worked with the attempts by republican congress to do just that. The man hired his kids and their spouses... look at any company, that's not how you get the best people for the job, that's just a hallmark of a poorly run business. Even Henry Ford the second, almost destroyed his father's legacy.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
As long as we don't go falling for their incomplete logic just because they are hypocritical, then wind up finding ourselves defending their original position. (I have seen it before, hell I have caught myself almost doing it)
Acting is acting, it is an excercise in becoming someone else. If they can fit the description of the character and can act well, then they can do the job. But if you have many people to choose from, you pick either the one who fits the description best, plays the roll best, or is so famous they will sell the movie for you. Maybe someone does mote than one.
Like, if I wanted to play Blade, I could do it. That's how acting works. It wouldn't change the character all that much (especially with CGI bodyswapping). But, if someone could do the job equally or better and actually looked like Blade, that is who you should go for.
But in a case where the setting is core to the narrative, it creates a substantial impedance to the suspension of disbelief or perhaps historical accuracy. You wouldn't have a woman playing Romel in a WWII non-fiction. It's like substituting chicken for a steak. It can accomplish the task of feeding a person, but it isn't a direct replacement, it's a substitution.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@hamishgaffaney5323 Which is weird because he is not at all an 'alpha male', he isn't even traditionally masculine, nor does he have leadership traits. However, he does have some negative traits that lately have been treated as male exlusive traits within certain vocal groups (despite being universal): a guise of competence, narcisism, pride, pettiness, ilmannered, gluttonous, laziness, lacking a sense of responsibility, dishonesty/no accountability.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
The problem I have with asking 50 people out, or even three is... That just makes them all seem like they are replaceable, and you are acting on progressively less substantial foundation. Which likely would mean a lower probability for a successful relationship.
But also, If the women knew you asked someone else out. Would they feel special?
I can't agree more about the exposure therapy, I don't think we face our fears enough these days. To overcome our flaws or restraints. Instead, we coddle and shield. "Oh I don't like strangers talking to me, it's creepy" They are human beings. Talk to the homeless man on the train. It might not be a great conversation, but it's better than treating him like a lepper. or the obesity sensitivity, where for a time even doctors were getting sued over diagnosing someone as overweight (Early to mid 2000's). 6:27
...Also if you go to a mall and ask 50 women out, someone's going to complain to security and likely get you thrown out and/or arrested, and/or on the news.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
definitely depends on use, if adhesion is an issue, it has a significant advantage. Though others may perform better, by comparison, on different surfaces (ex: damp, cold, rough, oily, metal, plastic, fabric). I would be very interested to see those results as well.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Can we please stop using the phase 'cis'? it should have never been adopted it is clearly a hateful word.
I am fine with Biologically male, genetically male, natural male, sex parallel gender, sex gendered, true to genes, traditionally gendered, observed gender, basically anything descriptive that doesn't sound like cyst, a hissing sound or anything comparably negative. You can still hold contempt against me, I can't change that, but it shouldn't be embedded in the words we use to describe a group of people.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
if you don't pay attention and just get all his promises word of mouth he would have sounded like... hmm maybe we should give him a try.
At first I thought "hey, Trump seems like a good choice, he seemed business savy on the apprentice, and isn't supporting any of the Republican positions."
Then after watching him speak, I was like... "this guy is full of crap, and does not seem knowledgeable, professional, or even intelligent. Let alone trustworthy".
Bernie seemed (seems) too extreme, but looking into him more it became clear he is a man of integrity, was capable, and fights for his constituents. So even if I didn't like his policies he would be a better choice. Then Clinton won the primaries and I was like... "shiiiiiiiiiiiiit, well this country is going to eat itself".
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
1. No it is not always best, we will go to 2 and then come back.
2. As answered above, generally acceleration in lower gears is more efficient due to mechanical advantage in gearing. At higher gears you have less torque so you must dump more fuel in to produce the torque needed to increase the speed (then there's also engine and drivetrain momentum).
(Back to 1) So when you are accelerating or will need to accelerate and you are in a high gear, you are wasting a lot of fuel due to the increased load. However, cruising on a flat surface you want a higher gear (eventually there are diminishing returns) because at lower gears your engine's speed must be much higher to maintain that speed (engine speed is related to, though not the exclusive determinate of fuel use). You want to seek the balance point where the engine is spinning as slow as possible, while doing as little work as possible for the given speed (if you plotted them on a line graph you would find an intersect). If you look at torque curves your engine's torque will sharply increase after a certain rpm. If you let the rpms drop too low the torque will be bellow that which is needed to maintain your speed and the engine will stall. If you are "lugging the engine" as described, you are pushing it to the limit of what it can do, and that makes your engine sad, and everyone else angry.
Forced induction changes the curves so it will affect where the point of maximum fuel efficiency is , otherwise it is largely the same theory.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
At this moment, construction and maintenance is still an option. (20-30 people spread out, minimizing contact isn't really a concern yet. Or else there would be a total lockdown, which there may be later. But not because of situations like that, it can't be outright halted regardless. Diminishing returns vs cost of getting them, etc.)
NOW, did I ever actually think Disney would fix stuff? NOPE, at the end of the day they just never want to pay until it is not even an option, preventative maintenance is not a concept they understand. Not wanting to shut rides down is just a convenient excuse.
BUT, do I still think they should? Yes, this is the best opportunity they are going to get.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I raised the concern at the time. To the extent of: Everyone shouting about that one time a coworker hit on them, or a guy looked at them, is acting like they are the victims of Violent SA. It is minimizing the struggles of real victims, and taking attention from their issues so that Susan who had a man wave at her, could get coddled and validated.
Then the mocking sentiments toward the above absurdity, and all the false or unreasonable allegations, made some feel less like coming forward or less likely to succeed, (plus delays in the courtrooms for a flurry of frivolous lawsuits. Impeding the most valid ones). Plus, if we dare note the "necessary collateral damage" of men getting falsely accused, and wrongfully arrested (also victims of the 'movement'). Socially alienating and antagonizing men, and causing a mistrust and resentment of women.
Great job.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thank you for doing this, I was feeling obligated to make a video breaking this down but I don't like making videos like this, and no one will see it if I do.
That said, Steve's introspection is what makes him as good as he is. There is always too much self-doubt, but we don't want him becoming CNN, Fox News, Buzzfeed, or Kotaku to never acknowledge their mistakes, attack viewers, and be so big headed that he ends up thinking only he and his opinion matters.
But I hope Steve doesn't end up at that extreme either. Although those were my initial impressions of him (based on one video out of context), I am glad I gave GN a chance and watched more.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I am still surprised how many people didn't realize the absurd overtones in season 1.
They even convolutedly made a supposedly strong and honorable character buckle to doing sexual favours for a job in the first episode. Talk about trying to hit all the 'present day' narrative tropes. Also, a 'white' infantile entitled man at the top with a superiority complex and an inability to do his job. Oh and he basically had an Oedipus complex just to drive it home.
As it went on it just got worse. In Season 2 or 3, they diverted the plot and tossed in a bits about black people being "kept down" despite the fact the man making the comments: Edgar is the head of the most powerful and evil company in the world. You know in lock step with the insanity that occurred in the US. Despite the fact the same hypocrites writing it made every black character a stereotype after that. They even made the guy in the black suit, black, "because black".
Then there was the whole Nazi plot line where they just painted everyone dumb and bad as trump supporters. Not that it wouldn't have some analogies given the zealotry and propaganda, as with many leaders. But they way they went about it was clearly more focused on sticking a knife in, than making it believable.
Anyway, it would be a great show if it wasn't so hell bent on attacking the audience. Hell I will give them props for making it watchable despite all of that (for the most part).
Just build characters to be good characters and don't force them to do things out of character just for commentary on current affairs. You can build a situation like current affairs and have them react in character, but... just the way every single thing is handled... like, "Don't do this, bad people are doing this and the bad people only do bad things, therefore you are bad if you do this, get it?" (unsubtle).
...Sorry for the rant. It is just, appalling and disappointing, it could have been amazing through and through.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Again, this sentiment that Strong female characters only matter when they are the lead, or the focus, degrades every single female side character, and anyone who has ever played a supporting role but knocked it out of the park.
I may be a broken record, but this needs to stop, I don't want my future daughter (if that ever happens) to live in a world where she is taught (even sexism aside) that no matter what she does, it's meaningless because the patriarchy (all men) will smack her down (not to try and succeed regardless of what others say). OR that her struggles and successes don't matter unless she checks every box, behaves the way these people want, and ends up on top (which you never would with that attitude, unless someone hoists you up there... as we've seen).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You can only have so much stuff, and if it's not stuff you really want it doesn't matter. Not to mention, there are only so many themed pieces of merchandise released each year, if the crate frequency outpaces the creation rate, it is unsustainable.
So what they should do instead, is have you like a bunch of items that you want. Then ship mostly consumable items (stickers, food, digital content), then give loot crates with items people really want less frequently. And maybe, just maybe, monthly is too often anyway.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I just saw the movie! I am just disappointed in cpt.marvel's acting/expressions sometimes... It doesn't meet the marvel standard.
Also, they didn't really develop danvers and mar vell's relationship to make her dealth impactful.
Structurally it left me a little empty; comedic timing was too off beat; as an origin story it left much to be desired, but as an overall film, it was definitely enjoyable.
The eye was disappointing, the avengers title was also. Some of the feminist rhetoric was stupid, but ignoreable, like the obvious jab at stay at home mothers "what kind of example are you setting?" (by being responsible and being reserved about doing something dangerous due to her responsibilities to be a living parent), or the "I don't need to prove myself to you" (which should've been more "what do I have to prove to you of all people"). The "smile honey", or the men exclusively hating on her as she went through training (but not making it a very substantial struggle/journey in the film).
To Someone who knows: Was Cpt. Marvel's character traditionally a cheeky, carefree wooping/hollering, destructive character? (like Cole from GOW, but not consistent or well established)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Equity is "both fair and just" that's what people actually mean when saying equality. That is how the systems were being designed (granted the US always lags in social change).
But these days that word is being misused to actually mean equal (or more than) outcome and not equal opportunity. The 'pay gap' has been proven broadly false, another misrepresentation by hyperbolic 'news' (of course with specific exceptions that need to be addressed).
In other words they are arguing things like this deal are equity, when in reality they are objectively, equal outcome or better. For example, something we would take as fair and just is if two people are offered half the apples they pick in a day. If one person slacks off they would get less, and that seems both fair and just. Correct? Now imagine, person A picks one apple, and relaxes in the sun, but by the time person B returns at sundown person A is hungry again and sees a massive pile that person B is taking home. They then demand half of those apples as they both spent the day 'picking apples', if they get them that is equal, but it is neither fair nor just. Now if instead of effort the factor was skill. Say person A&B built widgets for the same amount of time every day. Person A has a lot of practice and can make 300 in a day; person B is new and only managed 50. If they were paid the same that is equal outcome again right? But it's not fair and just (unless society ignorantly decides that equal outcome is fair and just arbitrarily, like altering a definition. Then by assignment it would be regarded that way and fiercely upheld as the 'norm', but it would still remain measurably unreasonable.). Because what it does is make a citizen, by law based on a trait at birth, in a position of objectively greater advantage because if that person tries as hard as the others they will always come out on top (unless by illegal act, like theft, or real discrimination. Which should be litigated).
That is exactly the opposite of an egalitarian society and NOT what we desire or had been working for. Regardless of what group benefits from that elevated status.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I would not say, "It has nothing to do with being woke." But, I would say that every indication seems to convey that the audience did not find it very satisfying, or appealing, as both a direct, and indirect, result of prioritizing foolish beliefs.
"You don't want to be the princess."
"We should focus on checking boxes, rather than exclusively merit regardless of non-BFOR qualities."
"You don't want to fall in love."
"You don't want to be rescued by a prince, that's."
"Art should be activism first and foremost."
"Cleaning is demeaning to women, they should boss people around instead, even when they are a guest."
"Bandits are victims of society, and not criminal scum. No not rebels, or outcasts, or the impoverished, just bandits."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, it is stupid, but in most contexts (ie uses) it is the same as saying "I am not homosexual but...". Followed by something that could draw their sexuality into question unintentionally, not because being gay is bad, but that it maymake things confusing. Which means that the issue would be that merely discussing your sexuality is homophobic... or at least telling someone you are straight is homophobic... Which is over reaching.
Now, if someone outstreached their arm with their palm out and said, "No, homo" then they would be using the term homo, as a slurr. No "homo" in itself is not a slurr, unless it is used in a negative context, otherwise it is merely an abbreviation of a long word, and holds meaning in itself as a prefix. ex:
One may also say, "No homo, please" or "anything but homo" when specifying their milk preferences to someone buying groceries. Context is significant in the english language. If you don't like it, give one word/phrase only one meaning, and replace inflections with a grammatical particle... or something.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
On the point of multiple entries, you are missing a key issue.
The awards are in regard to their category, not popularity. If you pick characters from the most viewed show, it will win, even if... say, the best voice performance was done in another anime. You choose the best cometitors to represent you. Imagine this way, say you host a high school track and field championship but there is no limit to entrants. So the bigger high schools with more people in sports get to have 10 chances to win the trophy, where as the small high schools only get 1... only in this case the small schools wouldn't even be allowed to compete because there is a limited number of spots and they are already filled because the biggest schools get priority.
I would go for a open nomination system that has viewers present nominations with an illustrative clip. Crunchy Roll Narrows it down and ensures basic criteria are actually met. Then, in order to vote, you must watch the short clips of each before making a selection. Best anime of the year should simply be by rating (then popularity, if they are otherwise equal).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jtg1972 it's not even gullibility or stupidity (...entirely anyway), it's largerly polarization. The result of these eye for an eye, stereotypes and straw-man arguments.
Anything anyone says in disagreement (regardless of their affilitation) is automatically defined as the extreme of the (left or right) oposing party, and obviously because all leftists are the extreme "SJW" "Socialist" "libtard" "SoyBoys", and all on the right are the extreme "Neo-Nazi" "Incel" "Misogynists", their opinions don't matter no matter if they agree on 99/100 other issues. In fact, any opinion held by them after that over generalization is applied, is abhorrent and absurd, because any opinion by X terrible thing, must also be terrible.
Anyone can have useful insight once and a while, be they a dunce or a Nazi. It doesn't mean you have to agree with all of their views, it doesn't validate them either. Take the points of commonality and find points of compromise where you can.
You don't have to like an opinion, but even if you disagree with its conclusion, chances are some arguments at least portions of value.
But no, no one wants to question the foundations of their view of reality, and it's easier to shout and call people names.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
All of the "bUt Sony IS AsiAN" comments are ridiculous.
A) From what was said, the mayor didn't say they were racist, it said being fearful of the virus is feeding into the racism (which, while true indirectly, is not a good rationale to pressure them over).
B) Multinational corporations hire local employees.
C) their headquarters moved to California.
D) While many people in Japan are very welcoming, there is a lot of racism there (relatively speaking), you can ask people from Japan if you doubt it. (Racism doesn't just mean asian/white/black/native/brown. In other parts of the world people get down to very precise groupings for racism, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Pakistinian, Welsh, Irish, Polish, Jewish, Kurdish, etc.)
2
-
Elvick Good, you have the correct mind set: Fear the sickness not the people who aren't sick.
Unfortunately many people fear the association (it happened with SARS also, and after 9/11 with assuming anyone brownish were terrorists), because they are ignorant and succeptible to the media's fear mongering.
However, you should really re-read that, because that's not what I was saying.
If you still can't grasp my meaning, I will rephrase it. Maybe that will help:
If people (who may not be you yourself) assume it is only asians, or only chinese, who have the virus, it helps the virus spread as they are not careful of the non-(assumed group), while they should be careful of any illness (and ALWAYS should be, unless the illness is known and uncontageous).
as for A) an action causing unintended consequences of racsim is not the same as being racist.
As far as racism goes, racism is racism, it's about holding negative views of different groups of people by stereotype. My point is that, In north america people tend to be ignorant that Asia is not composed of a single people. You see this a lot with certain people on the extreme left as well. They might say European, as if they are one country, one culture, and not dozens. Or they might assume all native europeans are white.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Saying "B.L.M." created a situation where alienating and antagonizing everyone else could not do anything but create push back like "WLM", or "ALM", and I bet that's what they counted on. Because it's pretty easy to look at it and say "race war, look at them trying to stomp you back down".
Trouble is most people don't think like the stereotypical '20s, '30s mindset. And so BLM pushed conflating "WLM" with the initial level headed response/agreement that, "All lives matter, and therefore anyone being murdered on the street is completely unacceptable, and any racism that may have lead to this is intolerable and should be prevented".
But, either way if anyone (considered a minority) tried to support a caucasian friend during the scapegoating, and anti-caucasian hate/fearmongering. They were traitors worse than 'the oppressors' and they got called some racist pre-civil war sh!t. (Complete hypocrisy for a movement allegedly trying to promote rights and respect of those same groups)
I don't know if he just stopped, caring, there was a mental health issue, or he just liked causing a fuss. But he just went all over the map.
I can see why people get upset by his views (both mild an extreme) and in that line of work, your rep is what a lot of it is about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As you say, this new trend of people having a "if you aren't exactly the character, you can't play the roll." mentality, is moronic.
Not only does it make an acting career unviable (because one may only ever get one roll) it also decreases the likelihood of 'discriminated' groups from getting roles. More fundamentally than that, it is absurd because no one is actually from the 16th century, or the future, or an alien, or a robot. Which effectively means, those films cannot exist. It concerns me that not more than a half thought was given, yet they'll fight tooth and nail for it. Then as you say, the art of acting is giving life to a character you are not. So I guess they don't think acting can/should be a thing, only reality, but only reality as they imagine it should be.
It's like a more extreme version of employers only hiring people who have years of experience in the exact position they are advertising.
If they have the opinion, someone else might be better, that's fine, opinions are opinions, but attacking the actress?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
David's take on 'cancel culture' is just willfully ignorant at this point. He deliberately creates the biggest strawman for a set of behaviours anyone can see happening, and he himself was subject to. Only this is on a much larger scale.
Fox News' version of 'cancel culture' is also absurd, but I expected better from David Pakman.
When a show is cancelled that is literal cancellation. But to be caused by 'cancel culture' (as people are seeing it done) the fundamental aspect is the concerted effort to tear down someone's life beyond merely their job based on objective performance measures or what is reasonably acceptable. There is a widespread trend of hate mobs trying to exact justice of their verdicts based merely on differences of race, opinion, religion, or association. In otherwords discrimination. It's one thing to say, this person is unprofessional, they shouldn't be working, or they should get training. It's another to say Chris Pratt goes to a church I don't like, I am going to harass and bully him and anyone he likes or associates with and actively campaign that he never work again, and they never work again.
Even for merely not going out of your way to declare support for something a random user requested can be the trigger. It's objectively a thing, it's visible, and it is measureable.
However, neither David nor Fox is reporting on it objectively. Fox is greatly over applying it and using it to suit their political views and false narratives (as Fox does). But in not wanting the appearance of giving them any credibility David is doing the same thing by exaggerating the concept and dismissing the objective truths.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's the thing. I know very few companies are actually run well, BUT...
There is efficiency in consolidation but there are limits to what should be done to maximize profits and minimize costs.
For example, rolling Crunchyroll into HBO max... doesn't make sense. Taking it's best series and adding them to the collection on HBO max, that makes sense. Leveraging efficiencies across streaming platforms, that makes sense. Specifically, sharing systems, personnel, content, advertisement, and operations, that makes sense. You don't need 4 marketing departments, you don't need 4 different video players/software licences, server farms, etc. HOWEVER, these are significantly different market segments and you have to compare the cost/benefit of shutting down CR entirely. How many of their customers are actually going to move to a hugely more expensive service that isn't exclusively the same content? Some may, but many will not (be it globally or locally). Then you would also need to ask, how many HBO max customers from CR would keep a CR membership in addition if they only took some of the titles? In business, it doesn't make sense (though some still do it) to abandon profits (profits not revenue). If they look at this and think ok it's still better to drop CR, then you consider what the consequence may be of allowing an opening for a competitor. And is it going to cost you more than just keeping your place in that segment?
My suggestion to Disney, Warner, et all. If you want to be a giant corporation you need to leverage that better, not just be a web of inefficient smaller companies. But dumping IP may help with short term cashflow in a buyers market, but that's not how you succeed long term.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I mean, it on its face is a fair argument: That these days, we like to pretend bad people don't also do good things (no matter their political leaning). It is also fair to say, we should acknowledge these things.
It would also be fair to say something pointing out that, not everyone in Germany shared the beliefs of the party. So in that sense not all of them may have been evil (perhaps even most of them).
BUT! Saying "I completely support them" is insane. As is, "I love an immoral individual, especially" (which may be an unfair characterization, if he meant in the "god loves all life" sense of "love"). It also, does not mean one good thing necessarily outweighs a bad thing. But one needs to look at history and individuals as a whole, because there is ALWAYS good and bad. Even when the good is a tiny thing.
I don't know if it is mental illness, incompetence, uncaring/insensitive/thoughtless wording, drugs, temporary stress, who knows?🤷♀
*Apparently he said he was on some sort of medication?
If it is true and he is off it that would certainly lend credence to the assertion of mental illness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I can tell you right now, if you want a new medical system you should start from a point of greater advancement, one that the bureaucracy is impeding in other countries.
Use expert systems (AI. ...not true AI, you troglodyte. A logic system built using the knowledge of experts in the medical field), as the public facing interface for general (non-emergency) medicine. Doctors are effectively troubleshooting systems. A computer can do that sort of function better than a person, since it will know all possible diagnosis at any moment (and the most up to date research). Doctors have different quality levels and make mistakes (they also may write unnecessary perscriptions for a cut of drug referral), where as an expert system gives everyone top-level care. It can even automate blood tests, do photo referencing, and check vitals. Hell even eye exams (though programming the former is much simpler). It will then give advice, issue non-controlled perscriptions, or escalate issues as necessary to real doctors.
With all that preliminary stuff out of the way it will reduce time doctors spend with patients, improve access, and a provide more consistant level of care. You can even take it a step further and have one tier of caregorization and escalation online in a reliable way (not web MD). Patients can then be directed to the nearest machine or directly to a GP or even a specialist. Again, this will reduce wait times, give 24 hour access, and not impede emergency care.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You have to look at this from the perspective that this is a group of former enemies that are now a part of the country. If you want to assimilate a group you have to make concessions like, giving recognition to the dead and the people who fought for them unless you want an uprising and more conflict. I suspect, most of these things were done/allowed with that in mind.
A few generations down the line it's not going to matter as much, but if you start attacking the group (the regions that were a part of that) you start getting them gathering together against those attacking them. If you start heavily antagonizing people for being the children and grandchildren of _ then you are going to upset them because you're attacking their family (even if their family is deserving of criticism) and chances are, they themselves are not deserving of such vehement attacks. Even outside of the region such significant attacks on moral integrity like calling them racists merely for having a flag on their vehicle (likely because they liked dukes of hazard), they wouldn't be bothered by the label if they didn't think it was wrong to be racist. Now you have an even bigger group that starts to cluster together. The biggest issue now, is for anyone who started out as mainly a bystander to start adopting the more extreme views of those they have been pushed into a corner with. This applies to any group.
Never moving past issues, only causes rise to more. One of the best examples is how hatred of and excessively punishing Germany created a path to WW2. Now in this instance, war seems absurdly unlikely. But any time a person is attacked for something they had no part in, be it a family member, a friend, or an acquaintance, it is discrimination by association.
If the media didn't make a big deal of these things, or the masses didn't start labeling everyone a racist for what started as merely disapproving of vandalism, they probably could have phased a lot of these out without anyone caring (except history buffs, or the odd person who is a kkk member). Should it be phased out for unity, yes. Should it be erased from history? No. If they took statues/flags down and put them into museums, it would probably be amicable. But once you try to ban something you're making a metaphorical martyr of it, and getting upset by long irrelevant symbols, historical figures, etc. Gives those things more power than they should have over you, and more power & recognition to any splinter group that remains.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Look, no matter where you land this was a tragedy, fluke no, but unfortunate at every angle.
From this part of the world, every time we see an American cop pull out a gun immediately, we aren't surprised "mr. cowboy" shoots someone (that is the common term). Now, by the laws of the state it seems lawful and may not have even been intentional.
But here, you don't pull out a gun for shoplifting, you don't do assault with a deadly weapon to get someone out of the car, you talk to people. You maybe smash a window and drag them out if they are excessively beligerant. The police would have first blocked her departure with a squad car, before the confrontation. Things are just handled very differently start to finish.
We have very few police shootings and even fewer police deaths. There's a time and a place, grab the plate, follow her home, wait for her to return and have handcuffs waiting outside the store whatever the protocol may be.
When you waggle a gun in someone's face they are likely to be shot, not just if they don't comply.
Now, again, assuming she had stolen something she shouldn't have tried to drive through the officer. But this anti-police rhetoric is creating these situations. People get told not to cooperate, and I can barely blame them for wanting to run when they think all cops are racist murderers. But If the cop fell wrong he could have died been crippled, who knows. So he has a right to self defense. Could he have gotten out of the way, yes. But the law of the land is the only authority in a civilized society.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If we get right down to it the conclusion, as inconvenient as it becomes, for the ethical standard will inevitably be that upon becoming a genetically separate lifeform, it has rights.
Now expressing and limiting the rights is where you get into the mud, especially because the US is a society of individualism and a fetus or zygote is completely dependent. Regardless, as with children they are given no say and therefore require protections (but no protection should be infinite). Just as a father currently has inescapable responsibilities to their offspring.
Steps can be taken safely to find an alternate host (or stored while waiting) before a certain stage. Like with anything else, after that stage there should be responsibility for not dealing with the matter in a timely manner (and getting into the situation to begin with, if voluntary). If you don't transfer the pregnancy before doing so becomes a matter of life and death for the unrepresented party, you should have an obligation to deliver it (though not to raise it. A government system should be in place for that). If in the event of a complication, requiring a decision to save one or the other, the default should be that the party with the highest survivability should be saved (unless self-sacrifice was explicitly stated by the party with capacity beforehand). No matter the circumstances of conception the unborn is innocent in this, and its life is inarguably fully affected in the handling of these matters. The arguments against which are equally applicable to a fully dependent infant, the only difference is, we see them and can feel more empathy. Other options exist and whenever they can be done safely then they should be. Inconvenience is never a good excuse for denial of rights.
One may have other opinions, and that is fine at the end of the day it is the most popular opinion that gets adopted and not merely my own. But I do seriously believe that this is how things will conclusively be done be it in our lifetime or in another few generations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This time there is no war, no substatiated animosity, and they are children. The argument that they could be spies is not going to fly. Not to mention ease of information sharing (videos, emails, social media). I highly doubt it will go unscruitinized.
Also, 150 supervisors for 5000 children is completely insufficient the average inept "educated" caregiver/teacher can't/won't even catch bullying in a classroom of 20-30. Under those conditions, I would expect violence, crime, murder, possibly even rape occuring (both from abusive adults, and between children) as a result of extreme conditions and insufficient oversight.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Look this situation wasn't handled well esp. by Trump. BUT...
There are consequences to shutting down the country, both monetary, and casualties. I don't have the numbers so I can't say at what point one outweighs the other. However, it is still something we need to consider (the consequences, and deaths both direct and indirect from combatting the virus in this manner). Turning a blind eye is negligent.
How could this kill people well. In the short term it won't kill many but, there will be people becoming homeless as a result of job losses, some won't recover. There are at risk individuals with mental health issues where (we all know, isolation is the worst possible thing for them) and there will be an increase in suicides as a result. Limiting access to healthcare that is independent of the virus treatment, will also cause problems/deaths. Then there's starvation risks. Again, job losses affect the ability to feed ones self as well as shelter. Not only that, not every individual has a kitchen in their dwelling (as sad or absurd as that may be), if restaraunts shut down. They just won't be eating. Not everyone has a nearby grocery store, if they can't take public transit, and restaraunts won't deliver, they may not be eating, or it's still winter and there is then an increased issue of cold related injury, illness, death, and if they are outside all the time commuting for groceries, they're increasing the Covid transmission risk.
So even if people aren't losing their jobs immediately from the virus, a lack of opportunities resulting from the massive economic downturn resulting from the shutdown may mean no-new opportunities for a long time. Which means more opportunity for these issues. It is something that is extremely difficult to measure, but it is still an issue. These things are always a number's game, and failure to plan ahead could potentially cause more harm, than doing nothing. (again it's a possibility, I don't have the numbers and I am not saying we shouldn't take these distancing precautions).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not just a matter of people but resources as well.
Remember Ukraine didn't push back into Russia and take their territory as well, they are fighting from a weakened position while Russia operates as normal on the other side of the border (save for recent drone attacks).
They lost a nuclear power plant, they lost their ports, farms, towns, Cities, industries... And they are dumping resources onto the front lines. The country is bleeding, in more ways than one. If they want to reduce Net losses, or dissuade Russia, and end the conflict sooner.... Ukraine probably needs to pull out every ounce of strategy, weaponry, and coordination they have, and push all out.
Whatever needs to be done to take out the kergy(?) bridge and cut supply. Followed up with extra pressure. lines, board/capture russian Vessels. Before N. Korea gives them artillery ammunition (maybe it's too late).
I know the world (Especially UN) failed Ukraine by letting it happen, (reminding countries everywhere they can actually get away with taking what they want and the rest of the world won't just stamp them out) and letting crimea happen before, but Ukraine may fail itself by allowing a war of attrition.
I wish everyone the best of luck, I know it's not an eaay thing and I appreciate their constant sacrifices for their homeland. I pray that the war ends soon and everyone can go home (for whatever little my prayers and foreign support is worth to soldiers on the battlefield).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly if you don't want to be racist, respect whatever colour choice someone decides to dye or paint their skin, if they think they look better tan, or pale that's how they want to look. People may look ridiculous in green or orange but that's not the weirdest thing people do. Changing skin is no different than changing hair, coloured contacts, or getting a nose job. At the end of the day, its the intent and effect (if you are actually affecting people) that makes someone an asshole and racist.
At some point you have to let the past go. People may have painted their faces in hate in the past, but being offended by a kid in costume needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It's very much the same as your abusive boss saying something sarcastically like, "great job (idiot)", then you flip out every time someone says, "great job!" as a compliment. You are putting past contexts on present occurrences that are fundamentally different. It is understandable to react poorly in similar situations it is emotional scarring, but that in itself does not make the other person's words or actions wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The dumbest arguments for .g(uh)-if
are "do you pronounced it jate", to which one should reply "gel, geoff, ginger"
The next is the argument, "the word it's short for is 'graphics' hence a hard G", to which one should reply, "you have abbreviations that are pronounced by the letter, read as an entirely new word, or a weird mix of both. As a result the pronunciation of individual letters often changes from the original terms. 'SWAughT' vs. 'SW@', ROM (as in CD-ROM), 'RawM' not 'ROhM' "
When you create a thing you have the right to name it, if you respect entrepreneurship and invention, you should call it the way the inventor intended. In this case a .gif is a soft 'g' "jif".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I mean the best argument is that, though it is a parody and it's funny because of the American stereotypes. Most people who would really love it, are those who don't even understand the parody and think "haaaa, that is such a socialist thing. Socialism is dumb".
But that's just a consequence of a poor education system.
I do have to question the timing of the release. Though a bit tinfoil hat, with the way lobbyists operate in the US, it wouldn't surprise me if the intent was to propose a hyper exaggerated image of socialism, to reinforce rejection of some of the socialist policies by building negative association (mixing in reasonable with the unreasonable). In an effort to disuade certain republican voters from being tempted by, policies gaining traction in the upcoming elections, for example, universal healthcare.
Hey monopoly is an old game and tired IP, it is being outperformed by newer and better games, so they have to do something to keep getting sales growth. I just want them to be a bit more imaginative, modify the board or board shape, make some game play innovations. You know. Still, it is a functional idea, and I want to try it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
18:47 Something we often forget as well WWII may not have even happened had (what Trump refers to as) Russia not helped kick it off. So Germany, Italy, Japan... He can't even play it like they are better in the regard for holding grudges for past misdeeds of leadership long gone.
So let's look at now, Germany strong advocate for the environment, order, and humanitarian aid. Japan, had a complete cultural overhaul it is possibly the most peace loving nation I know. No nation (that I am familiiar with at least) is perfect, but the citizens of Japan have a strongly engrained appreciation for life, ingenuity, cooperation, and respect. Japan made it a priority to learn from the tragedies of the past.
What has the Russian government done? a little bit of despotism, sprinkle in croneyism, corruption, subversion, anti-western propaganda. Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin was around the time the nation had the most positive and cooperative outlook. It wasn't perfect, but there was hope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think for the character, a padded suit really looks fitting. Cheesy but like what a kid would imagine being a super hero would be like. That said, Zachary Levi, still did a lot of working out for the roll. I just don't think there was physically enough time for the gains especially if they actually wanted him to look like Comic book Shazam ...or The Rock (who still would've been funny, but not as good at acting sincerely as a kid/teen.).
I preferred Jack, to Big, or 13 going on 30 (though they aren't exactly the same)... but that's neither here nor there.
Anyway, I think it's too early to say DC is heading up, if one or two more good movies come out, then I will buy it, but Justice league was only 2 films ago. Before that, Wonder Woman another good movie (esp. compared to the old ones, but still left me wanting a little more than it was), Then Suicide Squad and Batman V. Superman. So they are 3 for 3 right now. But Justice league, Suicide Squad,and Batman V. Superman, make Green Lantern look good. Which honestly, wasn't terrible but that CGI suit... This is why made for 3D films are garbage. (They use it as an excuse to drop picture quality. too many narrow angle shots, and close ups, Low resolution textures, and blurry backgrounds.)
I clearly need to go to bed, I am going down a ranting rabbit hole. Goodnight, I apologize to anyone still reading.
*upcomming: John Wick 3, Detective Pikachu, Endgame
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's be honest, most of the time this "hidden name, protection thing" is a falacy, people will say this s#!t to peoples faces, some will even go in person and commit real crimes against their hate targets. Some might be more reserved in person, but it's more the mentality and the limitations of the platform. Abusive forms of "activism" should not be tolerated, instead they are somewhat promoted on the front end (on the back end, people will go to jail if they are caught).
People make assumptions resulting an inferior form of communication we are not designed to communicate by, then they attack based on that massive missinterpretation, then there is no real back and forth. If you come into it with reading the wrong tone, most will continue reading things in that same tone, or the worst possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's the thing about 'systemic racism' the term was chosen to be impactful, inherently abhorent, and in most cases that's making it out to be more than it is. However, when systemic decisions are intentionally planned to harm a specific group, that is racism flat out. So when someone makes a law trying to supress a vote of a certain population, that is in every situation I can imagine TOTALLY INEXCUSABLE.
However, when you have societal norms, or innocuous decisions which inadvertantly affects one group more than another, that is a systemic problem that may need addressing, but it is not 'racism'. For example, you choose to give away 5 items to the first 5 people to enter your store. They all happen to be caucasian. Do they need to take them away and only give them out to the first person of each colour? Is that more equal? Is that more fair? That just makes the odds of winning dependent upon your skin colour, and that is racist. Now on the otherhand, if you decide to only provide post-secondary education to the highest scoring students but education is a known issue in a... hispanic community. 1) the education issue NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. But until then, that is unjustly favouring more wealthy and other ethnicities of citizens. So, 2) The system needs a way of balancing scores relative to their school of origin. But if the system is working properly there won't be just one ethnicity who is affected by poverty or poor education facilities, and those accomodations will be made for everyone in those situations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have to say though, forced inclusion, feminism, etc. is not new it has happened for decades and decades and decades. People say they didn't notice, but they were either not paying attention or have a short term memory.
The only real changes were that we had moved forward as a society so it had been less needed and perhaps that made it more stark (though now these neo segregationists pushing division under the guise of DEI, CRT, etc. have set us back). The other being that the balance shifted, criticisms are only allowed if it's toward men, caucasians, the straw man 'right' (everyone who disagrees), etc. and balance is what makes things tolerable.
...And I guess a lot of the views are just so contrasting to what we all knew to be successful and positive, egalitarianism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Plur307 generally speaking If you don't know what it is, it's best not to start throwing out difinitive diagnosis immediately. Identify where the sound is coming from, what type of sound it is, and when it occurs or what causes a change. Then you know where to look. It would be embarassing if you convinced someone to get a new cylinder head and it was caused by something loose and shaking.
It is definitely annoying when you have someone get angry over the fact that there might be something wrong with their new thing. They tend to people take it personally by assuming that you are trying to tear them down, not just caution them. Of course, someone who is prejudiced and making complaint after complaint, (regardless of how small, or insignificant) is also very annoying.
Regardless, if you get a new car, and it starts making strange sounds, or acting strangely, take it in right away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Personally, I like to take the approach of confronting the problem immediately before it becomes an issue. Then progressively responding more firmly if it is neglected and becomes larger.
But where I am from, many have become so accustomed to complacency that an unjustifiably large problem is created by merely making mention of a developing issue. Because 'YOU' are the problem, for creating controversy (addressing the elephant).
I get that in many cases people may over-react to small problems, and as a result of their nitpicking or controlling behaviour an over-sensitivity is developed. So reflexively any criticism may be percieved as a personal attack (especially post ~2012 where 'negativity' is so condemned, and to which even constructive criticism is frequently equated).
But as we all know, a likely problem with a risk of substantial detriment is better resolved sooner, and hindsight is an unforgiving b!+¢#. So in order to increase the success rate, I usually try to approach it as delicately as possible. Often, posing thought provoking questions rather than statements. (Too indirect and you are brushed off, too direct and there is rigid defensiveness.) It doesn't take a lifetime to experience these situations from either side, and I also know possibility doesn't equal certainty. So I remain flexible initially, because it is most important that solutions and safeguards be made, not simply adopting my own ideas (for they may not be the best one anyway).
Anyway, with the extensive essay I have bored you with out of the way... I have a feeling my approach does not fit in Japanese culture either. While it may favour net benefit and minimizing consequences in advance, it is also distinctly more confrontational.
In the unlikely event someone else reads this, what are your thoughts? What is your approach, and how do you think it would mesh with Japanese Cultures? Do you know where would be a good fit?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's obviously not entirely nonsense, but whether or not they can evade the statute of limitations or fulfill the burdens of the crimes, let alone get a conviction, is obviously another story.
The broader issue this raises, is how laws should be changed to prevent any actual unconvicted criminals from taking office to evade trial, and to hold politicians better accountable for committing crimes.
If the president robbed a bank while in office, or committed provable SA, etc. you should be able to arrest the person. Like if Biden committed massive fraud and stole federal pensions.
Because as of right now it seems like the president can do no wrong while in office. Pillage, plunder, murder, genocide, identity theft, insider trading, they have free reign while in office. While a person elected president might be expected to be upstanding, history shows very bad people can be elected. Countries need better precautions in the event heads of state start committing real crime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even drones aside people like to ignore that much relies on mutual trust and the perception of security.
Like the anti-firearm folks.
Sure limiting varieties of the most dangerous may make sense (in places where there are no rights on that front), but anyone can build things from what's at a hardware store.
So there is no sense in banning everything to feel safe because you cannot ban enough things, else you make life impossible. Ex:
"Oh, fire is dangerous so anything that can make an open flame is illegal" (doesn't stop the ability possessed by everyone to create friction, but it does stop you from having barbecues, furnaces, stoves, especially heating in remote areas).
"Oh, $+@¶¶!n&$ are bad so you can't have sharp objects" (so we can't cook now? we can't do construction, we can't have machine shops, or sew).
"Oh, bad things can be made with 3D printers, so let's ban those." (...You can wittle something bad if so inclined.)
Oh, electricity is dangerous so you can't buy a code book and fix the wiring in your house. (but the people who would be inept won't care to stop, and they are now more likely to be uninformed, also better to leave the bad wiring ignored I guess...🤦♀️)
Are there solutions to these problems absolutely, but solution will ever be perfect. Even free will aside, there is always cold, hard, probabillities. Enough events occur, anomolies are guaranteed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, while I assume your assessment under the law is likely correct, I would not be able to agree about the comparison you make for 2 reasons.
1. In your example, there is no realistic possibility of the gun being real, loaded, and with a round chambered. Where as, in this case she knew she had both a gun and a taser. The risk of drawing the wrong one was always there. Further, she has a duty to take the care needed to avoid such mistakes.
2. She intended to use potentially deadly force which is a reality with both rather than absolutely no intent to harm (or possibility of death). Granted the differences in risk of death are substantially different between a taser and pistol.
Now, you have also said, that would be justified by the law in this case also. In that case merely unintentionally grabbing the wrong one is the only wrong doing and doesn't change that the more severe action is justified.
I don't suspect she got a lighter sentence than the other police officer because of race. Most likely it was because of the significant contextual differences. However, if there was bias, it would be more probable that it be based on the fact she was a woman (which is supposedly a thing that happens often).
I think we need to be training officers and changing procedures to better handle situations (in a way that reduces risk of mistakes and the necessity of shooting suspects). Not only for the sake of the public, suspects, and criminals, but obviously for officers as well. Even if they don't get punished, no one wants to have a situation like Al Powell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If we want to adopt their sideways logic, this is cultural appropriation. Mermaids are based on the sirens which are greek, and greeks are by virtue of being in Europe, which we all know is a single monolothic entity, that equals 'white' and all things related (remember US school systems).
Ergo, they cast a 'non-aligner' (again forget what acting is) as a representation of a character with deep cultural significance (the emphasis was for mockery not for pun lol). They must now be cancelled immediately, and the actress must be cancelled immediately for accepting a well paying job. She should have known better, than to be so entitled and opressive.
(again we are pretending to be stupid here, no one should be 'cancelled'. Complaints are fair game, as are layoffs and casting changes for valid legal reasons. But harassing people, and mob justice is not acceptable behaviour).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The thing is for disney, they can share sets between starwars series, which would massively decrease the expense of filming multiple series.
But they aren't. For example, Having a bunch of regular series (cop shows, whatever) set in the Star Wars Universe would generate more interest than an a run of the mill tv series, plus there are those character focused Star Wars stories they were thinking of already. They have a bounty hunter series. They could have a Jedi Academy series (pre-empire); a Rebel or imperial Squadron series; Space pirates; A smuggler series; A military series centered around Delta Squad, or some random rebel troopers, etc., etc., etc. All of which, done properly could easily be compelling in plot and characters alone, plus be a fantastic opportunity for world building.
They are just going about this all wrong.
I mentioned those, I would want to watch all of them, even now despite everything (...but only if Disney/lucas film weren't in charge lol).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Who will save any of us" if a head of state fails to heed the people?
Right now, no one.
But if we form an actual global government with a clear doctrine, to represent and protect the people of the world. Not the UN, this politician's clubhouse for inaction (just like the League of Nations). A collective government of the people can hold federal governments accountable, abolish wars, mediate proteats, guarantee elections, protect against genocide. No veto power, no double standards for member states, no strong arming policies by the west.
Rubrik based intervention, clear and strict procedures for failure of duty to the populace, instant accountability. No striking parliament to avoid decent, no weaseling out of inconvenient interventions, no evading loss of confidence.
If we want progress, if we want rights, if we want to preserve life, we need to work together. We don't have to agree, we just have to work together. We can't stop conflict, but we can stop full scale war, and we can stop tyranny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In a cartoon any visible minority could be any colour, green, red, blue..., even white.
...Now would people over react, guaranteed. But the only way it would actually be a bad thing, is if they present it as if you should be white, or being black (or any other particular group) is bad. Even then, if it's to produce a positive message about NOT doing that, if that is the lesson of the film, it's not doing something wrong. That's the story, it's art, and it's producing positive results by showing to viewers that people are people no matter their colour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why now, why not whe me too peaked, or before? What changed? Did he suddenly become more successful? Did he do it again and they just now realized (too late) that they should have spoken up sooner?
Were they trying to find eachother to share legal burdens? (I think it is passed limitations in UK, no?)
Why would Russel be untouchable? He seems like the kind of guy who would be trashy. The drugs, they sudden fame, his attitude... Had I been told this happened 10-15 years ago, I probably would have weighed on 'likely guilty' unless something showed otherwise. Even now I hardly think it is impossible.
At the end of the day, even the people who find it highly unlikely, or 'impossible,' would hope people who have been wronged in these ways would get justice. But the question is, were they?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Banned. Based on that half of films ever would be banned. Censorship is ridiculous.
*wait, let's point out: Captain marvel, Wonder Woman, Ghostbusters 2016, The Outer Worlds, and... a great many new and old things that are not presenting 'gender pairity'. ...Hell Star Wars, the producer even said as much.
I don't think it should be a requirement, art is art, and whether I like the product or not, whether I support the message or not, it should have the freedom to tell the story it wants to. If you want to write a story about only a woman, or women, do it. If you want to write a story about an abuser and that abuser is male or female, do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As to if the defendant was underpenalized... I don't know. On one hand those kinds of thing can be traumatic, and have lasting effects.
On the other hand, if it was a genuine misunderstanding: Having experienced nearly being drowned and suffocated on multiple occasions due to extremely aggressive individuals (who apparently weren't properly socialized as kids), fearing death is not nothing but you weren't killed or permanently injured, your friend should learn not to attack their friends but they are still your friend and it wasn't intended as it resulted. Also, victims often become vengeful and desire even more than an eye for an eye (especially when manipulated by a third party without a complete possibly biased understanding of the situation).
So, if the allegations are true and it wasn't a misunderstanding and they continued their behaviour (or this was a repeat offence) more punishment would be suitable to the point that it motivates avoidance of said behaviours.
Without the full story though, neither came out of the situation happy, and additional punishment was already applied. I cannot say if it was enough, too much already, or not enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Be careful you look at what is "problematic" sarcastically, but by doing so so often to point out the hypocrisy you will also start seeing things as being problematic instinctively, without going through the thought of whether or not it is a absurdly overboard.
The lines blur when your head is in it, you may want to re-orient once and a while (not saying it's that time yet), before you find yourself accidentally defending things, or shaming groups.individuals/organizations for things you don't even agree with.
It's happened to me, I see it happen to others. For example, I don't like the whole pointing out everything to be misogyny. But seeing so much discussion of anti-male stuff, overt and subtle, lead me to call out seemingly misandrous things frequently. It is my belief that one can question but should not assume unless it cannot possibly be a coincidence, and even then, be open to other possibilites if they are raised in reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In tech you can make the decent argument that many veterans may not stay ontop of the newest languages, software, etc.
Which is integral to a business succeeding in an industry which revolves entirely around "NEW". That argument is drastically less justifiable in animation (and marketing).
Regardless, if someone can do the job well (which includes working well with others, and representing the company in a positive light), it doesn't matter who they are.
But this is the US, many want to be free of things like the burdens of workplace safety (because of short term expenses vs larger lawsuits later). Would it surprise me if the same mentality made them neglect job shadowing and succession planning, to instead opt for replacing the staff with younger, cheaper employees (at the expense of product quality and long term success)? No.
P.S. this isn't exclusive to the US, the "money, money, now" mentality is more common there. It is shortsighted regardless of who does it, or where.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree this was unacceptable but what does this have to do with soy?
Most people in North America dislike Tofu and soy milk, whether they are idiots on the left, idiots on the right, or normal people of any variety.
But seriously, blaming soy for this behaviour gives you a massive credibility and objectivity hit. Plus it just seems childish.
If you want to insult them, why not just call them bullies, higher thought challenged, miopic, closed minded, egocentric, criminal, hateful, oppressive, etc.?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wages have yet to increase to reflect the doubled prices of goods which employers are selling.
but even before the pande-flation, wages haven't kept up with inflation, adjusting my wages as a swim instructor in 2010 I haven't been able to out pace inflation with career changes and promotions.
But from 2010 to now, one would need to make over $120,000 per year to equate to $22/h then, relative to (now fortunately falling) house prices/rent in larger cities. Relative to vehicles, in 2009 $50,000 would buy you a '1-ton' dually with all the bells and whistles and a kia rio was as little as $9000. Now, that may buy you a 2017 Kia Rio, with 170,000km from a dealership, and an equivalent truck?... $126,000
Relative to groceries... Not as bad (house prices were artificially inflated after all. Like the toilet paper rush people are too easily taken in by the news).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are definitely allowing your biases to compromise your ability to objectively evaluate this study.
Based on what you said, those searches are grouped together, not looked at in isolation. What if, they merely compared certain phrases in how the question was asked, perhaps in other parts of the country people asked using different terms.
Yes there are other possible explanations for the correlation, Age, health (last I recalled, obesity was a significant cause of erectile dysfunction), the demographics of rural america have a fairly high rate of both of those. Then there is also a lack of access to doctors the more rural the population (which leads more people to google). Lets say for a moment they do have smaller penises in that area, is there an environmental factor? Is the demographic have significant ancestry from areas with historically smaller genitals? This is a reach, but a possibility, are there more dissatisfied women searching for ways to make their husbands more impressive, due to a inflated perception of what their lives/husbands should be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We're all talking speculation, until someone shows me the numbers of deaths directly caused by the virus, and directly or even likely by the shutdown and restrictions. I can't just say one is 'OBVIOUSLY' more or less significant.
I mean once the annual numbers are released then we could at least get some indication of what's what. (i.e. 2019 vs 2020 less corona virus deaths). If that number is the same, then even if many people died as a result of the steps taken, the number is insubstantial. But if 2019 less (2020 less covid-19 deaths) is greater or even close to equivalent to the number of deaths caused by corona virus, we really need to examine that and find better ways to approach shutdowns.
But at the end of the day, most countries had an appalling response. Not even "not doing enough" but not doing the right things, not taking action fast enough, taking too much action in the wrong way making things worse, fumbling the responses they were doing, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately this really serves to validate both sides. The pro-police who say, people are vilifying individual police officers often undeservedly, and then still expecting the officers to come to their aid. And it gives the anti-police extreme one more justification for their crusade and discrimination against all officers.
Now. I think it's the responsibility of everyone there to get over themselves and recognize something that is going too far, and deal with it appropriately (for the officers it's to do their job no matter what, or quit their job). The same goes for protesters when they were seeing looting, violence, etc.
But at the end of the day, short clips typically manipulate people by only allowing enough information to make your initial judgements. You always have to question what went on before, and after, and if it was orchestrated. Because it seems like everyone wants to be some sensationalist these days, and it's obscuring the real issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I had this conversation at the time of the John. A. MacDonald statue vandalism. 100 years from now maybe 1000 years from now they will be looked at as people who destroyed art, and history.
If we look at the ruins of ancient temples or monuments, we think "It was a terrible thing to destroy this artifact". At the time it is nearly always 'justified' by a hatred for the person (or group) and/or their actions.
Whether it is the statue of Lenin, or a painting by Hitler. Fundamentally, it needs to be preserved. Erasing history prevents people from learning from it. Most of the folks in the mob saw an opportunity to flirt with the 'activist' image so lauded since the 60s. Those images of "triumphs of the people" shown in school, spurring their righteous persona. But at the end of the day, if it's hatred driving the action, the action is likely to be an issue. That's what much of this was, hate mobs. Their intents may have been noble initially, but as we all know, a noble goal does not justify any and all actions.
Has society improved as a direct result of those acts of vandalism? Did it change the reality of history? No.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This kind of highlights what bothers me about how you say, (roughly) "Guns and ideas that fail, fail for a reason. There's a reason we have what we have: Because it's better".
However, there are many cases where you say "this is the exception", enough that in that respect alone the initial concept may not be as good a rule as stated. In those other cases generally by your own telling it isn't because this unique idea is hugely flawed but because of all the other complications surrounding a new product launch. For example as in the case of the pin-fire, a firmly established competitor or norm can hold back a new idea.
"dead ideas, should stay dead, they're dead for a reason" is a dangerous generalization to make, and often impedes progress as much as focusing too much on a lost cause (the hard part is always determining which is which). There are an astoundingly large number of more modern technologies now recognized (or in the intermediate) to be vastly superior, but had been proposed much earlier and failed. If each technology was given the same development cycle as the ones currently used many, many, more abandoned paths would be the accepted way now. "This gun just wasn't reliable", well was it the core concept, or the execution? Look at the Auto-Mag.
So obviously I am not saying we should go out and re-do everything. However, to say it isn't even worth investigating is probably a mistake (for firearms or more broadly) lest we miss an apex technology. Especially now that manufacturing/design precision has vastly improved.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
See the spanish language thing doesn't jive. One, in most cases colonialism was not a matter of force but opportunity, trade, and sometimes people wanting to help those less fortunate (just imagine what kind of person may volunteer free education to another culture...).
Two, in the time since, everyone in a democratic country has had the opportunity as individuals and as a collective to pursue other languages. Hell... no one has to learn if they really want to be stubborn. But strangely, language helps in life.
So while hundreds of years ago, the me of today would oppose cases of tyranny, the reality is that claiming woes of grandparents' grandparents, is just BS, greed, and narcissism. There is no end to it, people claiming wrongs of lives long past especially those you cannot even prove. I am not here demanding compensation or victim cred for the attrocities from my ancestors' ancestors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's another terrible campaign strategy right now, perhaps it is even worse.
As Brainlet (Shoe0nhead) pointed out, stereotyping, labeling and attacking Sanders' supporters (burnie bros), IS going to make most of them do ANYTHING BUT vote for another democrat candidate, should Sanders lose.
It really ties into and stems from the new trends and culture of labelling to create strawmen and dismiss any oposing argument. But it is foolish, attacking someone doesn't convince them to see your perspective. You see it with Rep/dem, you see it with games, people on twitter who disagree are all made out to be "trolls" (which doesn't even have a solid definition anymore), and you even see it with films of all things. Some are attacking people for not wanting to see a movie, it's ridiculous, a movie isn't owed your money (unless you snuck in to watch it, that's theft). But I digress.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Let my western ignorance explain to you the facts of your familiy's homeland".
When your argument is, "we need to hold grudges because some people aren't as well off" You have lost the plot.
1. Your baseline for comparison cannot be a modern western society it has to be what that country was, what it is, and what it might be by looking at other countries of similar situations without European colonization.
2. If the logic is that you have to keep holding a grudge because there is something to hold a grudge over there will never be a satisfying resolution for anyone, and you just perpetuate it indefinitely. People ruin their lives obsessing over vengeance, it's not a good place to be. Let it go, you will feel better.
3. We know historically colonialism wasn't whole heartedly opposed. Many at the time appreciated the education, the sanitation, the farming techniques, the tools, the weapons for hunting. Imagine if in 100 years time people demand reparations from your children for that time you scuffed their wall while helping them move furniture. Yeah it was worse than that, but fundamentally your children owe no burden for their parents debts and crimes. Pursuing that regressive logic will lead to a resurgence of lifetime indentured servitude. Imagine if doctors chose not to tell patients of a terminal but treatable diagnosis, to spare their feelings.
Now many may not like the British government or the abuses of power and negligence of certain individuals along the way. But who does!? People in Britain don't even like their own government most of the time. Do you punish the citizens? No. The only thing we can do is learn from the lessons of the past and strive to improve accountability for the crimes and overreaches of today, and most importantly... prevention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now if they just change the wording to 50% visible minorities that's another story. But that's the thing 'visible', if you can't see the thing they are being discriminated against for then it won't be an issue in hiring (if it is made an issue, then it is just that, and needs to be dealt with). But Disney has no business asking a person's gender, sexuality, or religion when hiring. That is a law for a reason, it isn't relevant to the performance of the work, AND it is invasive as hell.
If I hire a person named 'Jack sullivan' then they are my new employee, it doesn't matter if they are a woman, a man, or anything else, that is a name, they are a person, I hire based on their qualifications and their professionalism, End of story.
1
-
You clearly have no sense of reality and only listen to political painpoints from your party of choice. Alberta doesn't have a balanced enough economy.
Joining the US, would worsen the disadvantage you see vs Quebec and Ontario by 10 fold. Alberta has a lot going for it, but for all the supporters of independence you sure sound a lot like the people with a victim mentality. Like an entitled brat really, stomping your feet when things don't go your way, because you think you are the only one with resources or generating profit for the country. Realistically, The boom and bust oil industry is at the mercy of the US, and they have been the single biggest impediment to Alberta's success.
Worse becoming independent would put Alberta at the mercy of everyone. Since you clearly have no knowledge of economics, trade, infrastructure, or borders, you are demanding billions of dollars of infrastructure, a disruption of transportation networks, an indipendent military complex, which we do not have, then what? you just expect the rest of Canada to baby you and just treat you the same as before with all the benefits and none of the drawbacks?
Get real.
The UK departing the EU had massive and lasting consequences, and they are a nation merely involved in a trade block. Alberta has intertwined services, travel, transportation, utilities, food production... What you want is a pipe dream. Could you get there? Yeah, in 10-15 years at best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Republican party should have never backed him in the first place. They just did it because they put the persona popularity contest that is the US presidential elections, above all of their supposed tightly held beliefs. If you don't believe me, go back and watch at the time. What republicans said about him, what their criticisms were.
Think about all the self-proclaimed devoute Christians who just gave up on their beliefs and "family values" to support a man who has cheated, divorsed repeatedly, groped strangers (by his own bragging).The mental gymnastics to justify their hypocrisy is astounding. All they had to do was have some damned integrity and stick to the morals they constantly use as weapons to condemn others, AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE. Don't attend the rallies, don't listen to the hubub on the news, don't watch his debates, don't follow him on social media. That's all it would have taken. That last part applies to the democrats as well. Don't give the man more attention than anyone else in history, and maybe you wouldn't have lost. (Granted they also did a whole bunch of other garbage to push people away and alienate/antagonize them.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly after seeing the recap of 'gamergate', the issues surrounding 'journalists' lacking professionalism and integrity, to the extreme degree that was it was happening...
I suspect that the reach of that malignant rot is so far beyond what anyone imagined, and it just kept going from there. Employers usually only look at experience and had a high demand as the internet based content grew at an accelerated rate post 2010.
So it is pretty easy to imagine these poison pills ending up sicking their toxic fingers in one pie after another, failing upward (as well as manipulating, coercing, lying, and sleeping their way higher up the ladders). To a point where they could produce enough of a parroted narrative that they wound up creating this garbage situation we now see. Film, games, print, education, and eventually politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Few main roles for people of colour? Lando, the iconic voice of Darth Vader, some of the aliens, every single clone/Jango, Mace Windu, Captain Panaka. Could they have had more, sure that would have been fine. Did they need more? No, just like if the Black panther didn't need more 'white people'.
You need to be able to maintain narative and creative freedom. Not to mention general actor availability. If they make a film in Poland or in Zimbabwe I expect them to pick the best people for the role, and if they can't find the person who fits the description of the character but it is imperative to the story then I would assume they would use makeup etc. Am I offended when a Japanese anime studio uses a Japanese person to pretend to be a blonde American, and butcher the English, no. They did what they could (I assume, if they could do more and it would be better, they would).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't know the details of this case, maybe he has a history, maybe he had ample opportunity to say, "ease up a little", maybe he didn't care. If there was something to point to his guilt perhaps that time is worth it. But based on the limited details from Nate, 4 years seems like too much.
Failing his Due dilligence, kick him off the force. If there was malice, I do think he deserved a meaningful amount of time, perhaps even more. However, I do worry he may just getting excessively penalized for PR or maybe the jury is in fear for their own safety given the volitility stoked by all the news agencies at the time. If there is insufficient evidence for the punishment the justice system, and society has failed him (but if that is the case hopefully he can win an appeal).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*ok,ok, ok, ok. Stop. This trans person is 100% trying to sexualize themselves, (that's like 80% of what those activists do, you see them shaking their butt and trying to attract attention) now they are trying to play the, 'everyone else is sexualizing them' card.
Also a tangential gripe, given topless nudity has been legal in my country for years. People pretty much never do it except to try and make it a thrill or a protest. If they themselves didn't think them 'sexualized' or private, they wouldn't find it so thrilling. They wouldn't be taking instagram photos on mountain tops facing away from the camera for 'exhilarating freedom, and empowerment'. They would just be confident and comfortable with walking around shirtless on any old day. crowds, no crowds. (Not that everyone has to be, besides it's considered bad taste for men to go shirtless). Anyway, the whole sexualized/male gaze is a problem but it's at the same time empowerment, is a faff.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remote work makes more sense in most office roles, and it is to the benefit of the company (though obviously not always and it is dependent upon how competently they structured and managed remote work). They can cut down on overhead, reduce pay, have a much broader selection of candidates, etc., etc.
The biggest issue right now, where I live, is... If you want an apartment ($1900/mo), You have to make about $25/h Full time to just scrape by. If you want to live comfortably but not particularly wealthily, ~$30/h. If you get a more rare apartment for $1500 $25/h is that comfortable but controlled budget kind of life. I will leave you to imagine the longer term impications of that (especially given how certain groups have blackballed the idea of marriage. You can't bank on a 2 person income on a 1 bdrm).
However, if companies promoted more remote work (we have long since moved back to the offices here) then you could live in the dying rural communities and buy a whole house for a fraction of the cost of rent. It would also stimulate the economy in those small towns. More people, more business, more jobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The dumbest arguments for .g(uh)-if
are "do you pronounced it jate", to which one should reply "gel, geoff, ginger"
The next is the argument, "the word it's short for is 'graphics' hence a hard G", to which one should reply, "you have abbreviations that are pronounced by the letter, read as an entirely new word, or a weird mix of both. As a result the pronunciation of individual letters often changes from the original terms. 'SWAughT' vs. 'SW@', ROM (as in CD-ROM), 'RawM' not 'ROhM' "
When you create a thing you have the right to name it, if you respect entrepreneurship and invention, you should call it the way the inventor intended. In this case a .gif is a "jif".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think we are reaching a little in what he said. He may be trying to draw association, but he is doing it in a way that's so loose that no rational person would draw any significant merit from it. Like this, "I, like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., like Alexander The Great, like Gandhi, and so many other great men... Do in fact deficate, and that's what I am going to do" The action being related isn't defining. What made MLK great was standing up against opression, fighting for rights and respect, not bureaucracy, lots of people do bureaucracy. So yes, it was pointless to mention, and criticsm for it is merited but outrage is a bit much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
...Aladdin? You can say a city is barbaric without being racist, if the city was a den of thieves would that not be barbaric? if it was bureaucratic and you don't like it, you would call it barbaric. If there were slaves in a city you would call it barbaric.
Sure mispronounced words are something they should do better, but people do that all the time, even with english words.
For the 100th time, actors do not need to be that thing to play the role. Also, you need to keep your audience and genre in mind. Proper accents are important for a docu-drama for critics and academics, but if your audience is children or the lowest common denominator, you want to make the characters easy to understand. Besides the factor, that you use the actors you have and that will do a good job and attract an audience just with their presence, whoever that actor may be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think Disney made the right move here. It does make them look like hypocrites in one more thing. But hypocrisy is basically standard fare in the Disney meal plan these days.
For one and most importantly, the law didn't prove he was an abuser, that wasn't the conclusion of the jury as you note. So perhaps even firing is not necessary, though still justifiable for reputation.
For another, as garbage as their films may be, they heavily invested in him and he is fairly integral in upcoming content (thoughbof course replaceable if need be).
Lastly, they may be waiting for the results of his inevitable appeal.
So, trying to improve/test his image while the matter is still somewhat in the air and less severe than initially feared, is the calm and logical decision (I mean Ezra miller assaulted people with intent... and then some. People still saw the Flash). This is more how Depp should have been handled and we should applaud them for that. However, had he been a caucasian... I don't know if he would be getting any slack from Disney.
But I suppose given we don't know the content of the interviews, it may be that they aren't planning on showing him in a good light.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's the thing. If these people cared about fairness, and equality, and merit, but wanted to improve outcomes by the numbers. They would look at asians, and individuals within visible minorities who have succeeded, and try to structurally facillitate that shift (offer don't impose).
Slowly we would get there, though you will always have some companies and jobs with more 'representation' (of those groups) and some with less, since people choose their own career paths.
But no, they choose to be actual bigots instead. Begrudging asians for their capabilities, hard work, and success (On top of caucasians, and anyone else who doesn't kiss the ring, or they percieve as getting ahead).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:15 I have also said the exact same thing. The other nations of the world are not the US, even Canada. But barraged with their 'news' these days (over the internet), people can't help but assume a false parity that simply doesn't exist between their unique contexts.
They all may know the historical differences, but then they ride right over that and take what's infront of them. Like crime in my country, police may be rude, some may be corrupt, but we don't have officers choking people to death, and very rarely shooting them. So right there the fundamental trigger for the protests and riots, does not apply. Absolutely you can say "every country has its problems", but it doesn't mean they are all the same in scope or severity. It is entirely counter productive to attack (figuratively or literally) people, groups, and government bodies as an attempt to try to solve a somewhere else's problem. You have to try to solve the problems facing you. What people should have been doing is "hey, I want our government to show them how to handle policing with fewer deaths or injuries". Not necessarily that specifically, but protest for a tangible goal that will improve the situation percieved as undesireable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regardless of the alleged crime, investigate properly, and don't treat them as if they are guilty until proven to be.
Domestic abuse, sexual assault, and rape are very serious crimes, and should be taken seriously. However, they are very emotionally charged crimes to the extent that even readers will lose impartiality. Regardless of how abhorrent the idea of these crimes are, actions should not be taken under an assumption of guilt.
If you want to help, and doubt their innocence observe/investigate and report additional findings to the judge. Guilty or innocent, evidence is what leads to justice. Not harassment, firing, assault, or battery of the accused themselves (That can actually benefit them in court).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It irritates me that there are wrongs now, that all those opponents would complain at me for trying to resolve or hold people accountable for. Meanwhile they raise hell over grudges long past. I won't deny there were issues during colonialism. But as miopic as it is to only see the good, it is equally miopic to only focus on the bad and deny any good merely out of the immature inability to accept reality is not just for convenient advocacy. I would be complaining about those same issues then, holding those of issue to a higher Standard.
Meanwhile, just as now, they'd be the ones trying to justify every action as merely a small cost of helping others. Or outright claiming the facts are 'fake news, and misinformation' again without taking a critical and objective look at the information and perspectives they are receiving as well.
We need to focus on solving the problems of today for the people of tomorrow. That doesn't mean ignoring history, good or bad, but learning from all of it and striving to do better. There is no end to trying to resolve old grudges from those long dead.
If my great great great grandfather was rightful hair to a kingdom, I wouldn't be raising an army to take it back from a democracy that now resides there. I would also never take revenge on Hitler's descendants, they aren't the man himself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't, you guys deserve a real education system, a stable economy, and access to healthcare that everyone will need at some point in their life (which would make it cheaper and easier to control by you the people).
Responsible gun owners know they aren't the problem, but they also know that not everyone is as good as them, so why not make what should be plain as day into law? Maybe don't give the mentally ill guns, or people who are too dumb to use a gun without shooting themselves or their friends, or to criminals. It won't erase the issues in entirety, that's not a reason to not do it every logical improvement will save a few lives. If someone thinks there has to be one simple solution to every problem hasn't been living very long... or won't be.
Take saving money for example, you don't just cut one thing out of your life entirely, that usually causes more problems, you trim the fat everywhere you can. And you definitely don't say, "Well, since cutting down on cigarettes won't fix the problem, I guess I shouldn't do ANYTHING AT ALL".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am not for private schools, but I know that your kid can hypothetically get a better education there (just because there are hypothetical exceptions). And that is the reality.
But private schools are mostly just another barrier to entry for the wealthy. I am not saying they have no right to exist, but private schools typically still get money from the government, tax breaks, etc. I just think that if you are going to create this nook for a wealth based education gateway, especially in the US (where the public education system is on average quite inadequate), then no breaks, and they have to pay for EVERYTHING. It encourages more participation and interest in the public schools, it diverts needed funds to the public schools... etc.
It's not a solution (there are a lot of things needing fixing) it is just a better approach.
But my ultimate opinion is that we should be funding better digital learning because then you ALWAYS get the best lesson, not just left to chance if you have a bad teacher. You will still need in person classes for some things, but you can drop half the teachers who can't be bothered to take their job seriously anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok seeing the video you have to consider the situation. There was an active riot, where people were known to be killed and seriously injured, that alone should be considered an iminate threat. But he chose to be there for 'allegedly' the defense of others.
Now he was being chased by a violent mob, several of whom were armed, and there was no way of knowing of the others were also. It doesn't matter if in a split second they were facing a different direction they were still a threat and if he was not aggressive he would have to risk likely harm or death to discover that. After firing his weapon, an angry mob tends to feel even more justified in an attack. The attempt to disarm him after such violence could only be interpreted by a reasonable person in that situation, to be further threat (especially if that weapon would then be used against themself).
But regardless, the situation, until resolved was an ongoing threat, if he needed to fire his gun to keep it so that he can prevent being killed by another armed individual.
Note he didn't (despite the threat) fire on the person with a blunt instrument, or the man whose hands were in the air.
(Also note the photo or convenient still) was of the man in the tan shorts did not drop his weapon or keep his hands up. I don't know if he had fired at him previously, that would be important. He also shot at his arm (perhaps in an intent to disarm, depending on testimony).
17:41 the frame where he is getting behind Rittenhouse, He has regained a firing grip and appears to have his finger on the trigger.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's watching videos like yours showing the worst people that make me feel like I need to be reserved and like my talking to people is doing something wrong.
(I know it isn't, and not everyone thinks as they do, but you foolishly worry about the 1 in 100 extremist... When people stop being polite and friendly, or even just stop socializing, the world becomes a worse place. People get depressed, people develop other mental illnesses, people lose the ability to relate, people fight more, essentially people don't live [don't make friends, or do things, or fall in love, or have families])
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As much as I don't care for the nature of trying to make problems when you can't find them, but Candice is just as guilty here for baiting them. "I am not gonna call you out... (guys?) I am not going to call you out, but..."
She then lost any moral superiority, by conflating them with communism. It just more of that straw man, labeling, BS so they can dismiss someone as a farse before you even hear from them. (You know, like racist, nazi, woke, sexist, etc.)
You don't need to do that, opinions you don't feel have weight can be ignored. If they actually have weight people may still follow their logic. If not, it will be forgotten. Otherwise a bad position can easily be refuted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kneon... Your idea of bend the knee is pretty unusual. I know it's easy to get caught up in the narrative with US media, but...
Having every country institute tariffs on the US isn't exactly bending the knee. And eventually those effects will show themselves.
These countries wanted to have discussions immediately because the president just violated dozens of trade agreements (several of which he oversaw and applauded). Negotiating wasn't a question, if he just asked that's the outcome they would get. Instead of having an intimidated and individually weaker economy to negotiate with, he now has hostile negotiations and everyone together will have a stronger bargaining position than the US alone.
I get each time there was backlash they want to craft a narrative but they do conflict with eachother and it's clear the president's advisors don't have much sway, to convince him how to do it most effectively and with the least harm to American businesses and citizens.
Have any of you read the art of the deal? It's a mix of very basic stuff hammed up like it's novel/genius, and absolute garbage. Remember when Iger had a master class? Imagine that but more egotistical.
I feel bad for you guys in the US, if he gets flustered and these tariffs get enacted or intensified, you can't just avoid buying all foreign products. Everyone else just has to avoid US products getting price hikes, for you guys can't avoid tariffs.
(Tariffs that have to happen to bring jobs back, but really it's about improving the trade deficit, but really it's about fentanyl, but seriously this time it's about China so it has to happen to everyone, but sike! we're actually pausing because I am crippling the economy and driving businesses and investment away.)
No one gets hurt more than you guys. It's bad for China sure, but China already had companies moving out due to subterfuge and agression, now the Whitehouse is driving everone back to China. Japan, Korea, and China pledged to increase trade dispite security risks. The EU just met with China to discuss opening their market more.
Anyway I genuinely hope things don't get to crazy for everyone over in the US. Things could get really bad. Keep an eye on the auto idustry, it's usually an early warning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Segmenting the market into exclusive only services, like Disney does, will be a perfect illustration of game theory.
Streaming services only work because of their broad array of content. Most people won't pay a monthly fee for 12 different services at a time. Which means lower viewership for your shows, less word of mouth, lower likelihood of having a 'hit', and fewer DVD sales. If you lock your content behind a paywall you will end up with a few succeeding, but most failing. ...and if consumers are switching constantly monthly memberships don't make sense.
The only way I see segmentation working is if every service hosts free and open access to their content with ads, then a membership or pay per view type method with no ads. But it would work a lot better for one joint platform with a membership fee, where all videos/tv is centralized, anyone can add content, and payment to license holders is based on viewership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1