Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
1100
-
416
-
@Laocoon283 100% not true. Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you. Netflix is successful despite the fact that i can literally go to duckduckgo and find any movie streaming for free within the top 3 results.
When Weezy's new album dropped i listened to it on Spotify despite the fact that it was widely available on bittorrent and i already had utorrent installed on my PC.
Even before Napster, tape decks allowed you to get music for free from your friends. The industry didn't fail.
Nothing is free. Limewire, kazaa & napster were expensive in terms of time investment because you'd frequently get corrupt versions of the song, mislabeled copies, viruses, etc. And the product offered was inferior. Time is not free. Furthermore, breaking the law is not free, and even though the risk of getting caught is negligible, it still creates marginal stress and occupies a bit of thought.
The problem is that the only official alternative was ridiculously overpriced, produced in a very restrictive format (CDs), and sold to you by blatant white collar criminals.
149
-
43
-
28
-
24
-
21
-
16
-
15
-
12
-
12
-
The current opiod crisis is present in a bunch of conservative strongholds. Also, most major cities are liberal anyway, so hard to single out 'liberalism'. Particularly the cities with pleasant climates year round, that make outdoor living practical (eg: NYC doesn't have a public shit problem)
Also, much of the current homelessness is the result of conservative scaling back of the social safety net including reduced funding for welfare, mental health services, lack of public healthcare, affordable housing initiatives, etc. Not to mention Republican led financial deregulation that has caused multiple financial crises in the past 30 years.
If you were to remove the number of people who were made homeless due to lack of access to mental health services, or due to bankrupting themselves paying for a medical emergency, or due to losing their jobs or savings because of a financial crisis, you would probably not have a homelessness problem to begin with.
11
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@MichaelJames-lz7ni This is not true. Record sales revenue did not pay for production costs. Rather, the tiny portion of record sales revenue earmarked for the artist were used to pay production costs (and multiple other invented fees). The company's share was untouched. This was known as 'recoupment'.
Many platinum artists did go bankrupt directly as a result of predatory recording contracts (TLC, Toni Braxton, etc.).
Furthermore, it's extremely misleading to include examples like Madonna & Michael Jackson who are radical outliers, even among platinum artists (who are already outliers). This doesn't represent the prevailing reality. It's a bit like studying poverty but only looking at homeless people who won the powerball lottery twice.
Finally, it's important to understand that even among these super-outliers better terms came as a result of contract renegotiation subsequent to their success. They lost a lot of money under the terms of their first contracts.
The prevailing wisdom amongst managers, agents, and financial advisors was that in the absence of some miracle, the vast majority of artists (particularly debut & sophomore) should expect to realistically earn $0 from recording royalties after fees were deducted, and focus on merch, live shows, and capturing as much of the advance as they could. This was all the case before the invention of .mp3
Let me be clear: Unless you were already a multi-millionaire, there was no way in hell you would see a million dollars from selling 1 million records.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@unnamed776-m9h This is well beyond my field of expertise. I understand contract terms and economics, but I have no idea what it takes to make a star. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving much advice in this regard.
That said, I can suggest generally:
1) Keep costs down
2) Perform often
3) Focus on establishing a living wage through your work before thinking about being a star. Being a star is a unicorn/winning the lotto type thing. If you can earn a living wage from your art, you're already ahead of most people.
4) Find visual artists that can help you with branding. A cheap way to do this is to find senior year visual arts students.
5) Read any contract carefully. Do not sign anything on the spot. Always ask politely for time to review. No exceptions.
6) Seek the assistance of pro-bono lawyers. Organizations like Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts provide these services at little to no cost.
7) Try to minimize the duration of any contact you sign. Preferably 3 albums, although this is often difficult to get them to agree to. More than 5 is too much.
8) Treat the enterprise as a small business.
9) Get health insurance, establish a savings & retirement fund, go to the dentist and brush your teeth. These sound silly, but little things like this derail entire careers. An unchecked cavity can become a career ending disaster when you find out an infection has spread and you need $10,000 to treat. Now you have to get an exhausting job and are trapped in a cycle of debt that is difficult to break free from.
10. If you get signed, treat your advance like the only money you'll get, because its the only thing guaranteed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Cate someone Listen buddy, you're not a woman or a man, you're a turd that has achieved sentience, and while that is impressive, it does not qualify you to make grand generalizations about half the population of the planet.
At this point there is no consensus across any academic field to support any of the radical claims you are making (medicine, anthropology, sociology, economics, psychology, etc.)
Furthermore your current turd status means that your kids are almost certainly genetically at least 50% turd. As such it is unsurprising they would encounter difficulties in socialization.
In any case it's your job to get up off your lazy ass and help them deal with their own personal problems. Bullies? Deal with it. Bad teacher? Write a letter. But don't indict an entire gender and make vague unsupported bullshit claims about the school curriculum.
Like seriously, who am I supposed to side with? A school I've never seen before or a sentient turd with a yt account?
I say this all totally unemotionally. lol
2
-
2
-
2
-
@goober69er I think your analysis suffers a bit from 'mile wide inch deep' perspective. You brought up a smattering of issues, however when you look more carefully into each one, i think they are not all the concern they appear to be.
1) I don't know that Canadian law regarding child sex reassignment actually differs from US laws substantially. These procedures are already allowed in the US and have been for a long time. The issue is that barring the most extreme cases, they are very difficult to actually have done due to a combination of a stuff (ethical standards among provider professional associations, cost, exposure to legal/civil liability, etc.)
Furthermore the process is not as simple as alarmist conservative media tends to make it, as the amount of medical and psychological evaluation that needs to take place prior to a full on reassignment surgery is so extensive that (barring extreme cases like biologically intersexed individuals) it is unlikely a child will be able to qualify before enough time has elapsed that the individual is at adulthood.
All signs indicate that this seems to be a virtual non-issue that has been blown out of proportion. Almost certainly any reform in this area will probably happen through refinements in the criteria for surgery as published by the relevant professional associations and not by any new legislation. Simply put, this is a red herring.
2) I also agree with the Roe v Wade standards, as do most Americans. While half of your statement is true (with some conservative states trying to undermine the ruling by effectively banning abortion) the other half is not. There is no equivalent race to allow for abortions at the last day.
The situation of the US right now is that we are failing to meet the RvW standards by a wide margin due to lack of funding, access, and a number of other deceptive and complex schemes plotted out by anti abortion conservatives.
So again, this is not a case of evenly balanced sides. We are radically below the RvW standard, with zero risk of being above it. And only one side is working to undermine the law in this regard.
3) The US has faced much greater threats to freedom of speech than today's PC culture. McCarthyism, total domination of broadcast media in the 80s, etc.
Currently speech is more free than it has ever been.
Now, it's true that there are some annoying college kids out there. But there are a few things to consider:
- There always have been.
- Social movements tend to gain more traction when traditional sources of power are dominated by the opposition. The PC police are high profile because Trump is in charge, just as the Tea Party saw its zenith under Obama. Don't get distracted by the pendulum swing, it'll roll back when leadership changes.
- Most social movements are initiated and led by their most annoying members. So it's usually ridiculous people asking for ridiculous things. But when the dust settles, we tend to find a good balance. When this is over we won't use some of the offensive language we used to, but we also won't be the politically correct automatons some young idiots are asking for.
- Honestly the PC movement appears to already be losing some steam. I think it peaked like a 18‐24 months ago.
- Comedy is a good example because whereas comedians complain about it, anti-PC comedy is actually extremely popular with all the anti-PC guys making record revenue. And comedy in general is experiencing a golden age right now. That's a good tradeoff for skipping some college gigs.
So all in all, this doesn't seem like a real threat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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 one is 100% right in this situation.
Reading through the allegations, there are definitely instances where Louis seems to have behaved inappropriately. However, in some cases, his accusers seem full of shit, as it seems like they openly consented.
At the same time Louis' total surrender with zero attempt to defend himself seems lazy and dismissive. If he didn't agree with the accusations, why confess? I mean you make it hard for yourself and for other guys like Aziz when you don't tell the truth and defend yourself.
Most of Louis' comedian friends didn't really stand up for him at the time, with people like Sara Silverman and even Joe himself bowing to the public at the time, and only now, over a year later beginning to say anything to defend Louis.
This club promoter also seems to have distanced himself from Louis at the time, using the excuse "I lost your number". Dude just be honest, you were waiting for the heat to die down.
I don't think anyone has the moral high ground here.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2300 Slatt Good answer, so feminists want things like not being shamed for having sexual desire and not being discriminated against in the workplace. But they don't want to be forced to pretend they don't have feelings at all.
What part of that do you find objectionable? I mean those seem like pretty reasonable requests for anyone really.
Now, separate from that you say feminists call you weak. Who are these feminists? I mean I've never seen any feminist manifesto that complained about men not being stereotypically 'male' enough. No academic papers, no rallies, no lawsuits, no major feminist speaker, no publication, etc. These are usually the things that define a movement.
As I understand it, a major part of feminism is deconstructing the artificial polarity between our stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Understanding that people are more alike than we frequently assume.
So it sounds to me like either:
a) You're hanging around mean people who are bullying you
or
b) You're an exceptionally weak human by any standard male or female, and they're just calling it how it is.
Both of these seem like personal problems. If you could provide some sort of example (even hypothetical) to suggest otherwise, maybe I'd appreciate it. Because right now it seems like you're wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goober69er Congratulations on your attempt to grow a brain. Now if only you could learn how to pay attention before commenting.
I never made the point you're arguing against lol.
I didn't take issue with the idea that men and women may have an evolutionary tendency to act differently. I took issue with people who claim to know precisely what that difference is, when even the people studying this stuff for a living haven't reached agreement on it.
I also don't see why both can't be true. That women can have an evolutionary tendency to behave a certain way, but also that socially constructed gender roles influence people's behaviour as well.
And if that's the case, where does one influence end, and the other begin? And which has a greater effect? And could they be in conflict with one another?
Also, if we're using an evolutionary model, what is the rate of evolutionary change with regard to behavior? We know it may take millions of years to grow legs, but only a few generations to grow the ability to metabolize milk. So how many generations of complex human society are necessary to cause an evolutionary change to a psychological feature? If few, then animal models wouldn't help very much.
Also, we run into a problem when we try to translate an emotional or cognitive characteristic into actual behavior, since behavior is as much determined by your instincts as it is by a cost/benefit analysis.
This is why it's important to say, "yes, evolution may play a role in determining gendered psychology, but i will refrain from attributing gendered behavior to evolutionary forces because of all the confounding variables i have not accounted for."
1
-
1
-
@goober69er If you seek out extremist opinions, you'll find plenty of opportunities to get pissed off. An entire industry has grown around outrage politics with guys like Jordan Peterson and his left wing counterparts who make money by misrepresenting facts and demonizing the other side.
This is made worse by the fact that reasonable moderates who are working in earnest, often haven't figured out every answer yet.
But that isn't an excuse to say fuck it, because there are a ton of resources for learning what things like the trans movement and feminism actually are. And overall, they're both good things.
The most basic concept to understand is that biological sex, gender role, and sexual orientation are 3 different things. And while they most commonly tend to align, sometimes they don't. It's not that big a deal as long as you're a chill fucker who treats everyone alright.
All this gender pronoun stuff is just temporary noise while people are trying to get their bearings. The dust will settle in a bit.
And as a general rule, when determining the source of an observed behavior, always begin by attributing proximate and quantifiable causes, before appealing to grand and vague ones.
If a black guy robs you, think maybe he's short on money not "it is in the African's nature to steal as the warm climate is not conducive to long term planning"
Same thing when analyzing Male/female behavioral differences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeschmo247 No. You are mistaken. Trump put a travel ban on China February 2. The Europe travel ban didn't take effect until March 13, over a month later.
Furthermore, Trump's "ban" on China wasn't actually a ban. 40,000 people traveled from China to the US in the 2 months following the fake ban. This was because the ban had tons of exceptions and was poorly executed. A ban must be >90% effective to have any effect on virus with a reproduction rate of 1.9 or higher. Trump's fake ban fell vastly short. This is because the ban was conceived as a political gambit, not as a genuine disease prevention strategy. It was a xenophobic attempt to stoke a culture war, which is his standard electoral strategy.
Trump not only failed, but actively resisted all the steps necessary to actually prevent the damage that Coronavirus has done to America. Namely: Stockpile supplies, enact early testing, reach out internationally to establish multilateral strategies, enact early quarantines, direct emergency funds to strengthening relevant healthcare services, and generally take the problem seriously.
This seriousness of this crisis is as much Trump's fault as it is China's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1