On an unrelated audio topic, is anyone familiar with the concept of Out Of Phase Stereo (OOPS)? I discovered it by accident back in the day where i would short out Walkman headphones from constant use and hear only the difference between the left and right channels. So a piano (e.g.) mixed only in the left channel would become prominent and everything else would sound far away. It brought out some interesting effects in some songs and I didn't know it had a name until I found it on the internet. People use it to discover background mutterings in Beatles recordings, among other things.

@Ickster
"That we're equating that with something like gay people being refused service because of who they are says a lot about how skewed our perception of balance is."

This is the fundamental point. I DON'T equate the two at all.

But as soon as we open this door, we have to deal with the permutations of it.

Let's say that for the sake of argument, gender identity and sexual orientation are now protected classes (legally, they're not, but let's assume they are).

Ok, you can't discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ. Great, that is obviously correct.

But we're making the argument here that you CAN discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation. Would you be ok with someone refusing service to Obama? Hillary? Bernie? What about an employer in a Republican town who finds out their employee is a prominent local democrat?

I get the argument and honestly, I agree with most of what you've said. If any of Trump's cronies had shown up in my (completely imaginary) restaurant, I'd probably have turfed them out with a lot less civility than SHS was shown.

But I'm just not sure that the world following my example is a good idea....

I hear yanny much more prominently than I hear laurel, but they are both there.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/laurel has a MUCH clearer audio than this garbled mess of a youtube video. This is probably an artifact of the audio being multiply compressed by youtube, recording software, etc.

On the chance your 'jokingly' isn't obvious, MLK, Ghandi and Mandela's causes ALL had support from those willing to use violence, aka better weapons would help.

Malcolm X would be the next most prominent figure beside MLK. Indian independence wasn't won with peaceful hunger strikes alone, and again lots of violence in South Africa.

Ghandi even bridged the gap to working alongside the effective army fighting for India's independence:
" I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier."

Speaking more to the point of America today, pretty much no civil war has been fought exclusively with civilians on one side, and the government, police, army and all other branches of the state united on the other. The reason being that if that kind of unity within the government against the civilian population exists, you ALREADY have tyranny.

In America, the example would be if a president or a particular political party decided to try for tyrannical over reach, would the American public be better equipped to resist that with or without guns? In civil war, guns give power to the majority of public opinion that would need to be there otherwise. In a nation with an unarmed public, whatever the majority of soldiers side with is likely gonna win. With an armed populace, the civilian opinion matters more.

I think it's an overall modest observation, and one that really doesn't in anyway make it obvious that the modest benefit is worth the costs. That is another matter, but you can't factually claim that there isn't a meaningful difference between an armed and unarmed population when facing civil war.

This.

There are enough things wrong with Trump that shooting down everything about him in a one sided monologue looks the same as what Fox did with strawman arguments against Obama.

It's not enough to point out Trumps problems to people. You needed to have one of his prominent supporters on air to demonstrated that Trump is OBJECTIVELY worse than any other president. The other upside is actually getting a chance to have the voice of a Trump supporter like Roseanne out there so that maybe, just maybe, left leaning folks can hear the other side and find common ground. Until the democrats steal back people that voted Trump, the train is just gonna keep on rolling in the wrong direction.

Example, talking about rolling back Obamacare as though it should be obvious to poorer Trump supporters that they were screwed by this. You can't just change their opinion by calling them too stupid to know what their daily lives are like. You have to listen to the details of why they think their healthcare under Obamacare was, or would become worse than before it. I know my aunt and uncle in Alabama, although middle class, both swear that after Obamacare their costs went up and benefits went down. You have to listen to people a bit if you care about figuring out how to change their vote next term,

Is this directed at my point of view, asmo?

If it is, I don't recognize myself in it.

My criticisms were all pointed at men choosing ONLY facade.

I never said the women shouldn't wear makeup. I didn't talk about their intelligence or their skills with guns -- I have no idea how intelligent or skilled these women are.

My being creeped out was related to whoever assembled a statistically impossible collection of beautiful women, and then using a camera to give them prominence in a video purported about Keanu's shooting skills.

I admitted my error at assuming that Keanu was the person who gathered these women in one spot.

Certainly, I am guilty of being unhappy that women allow themselves to be used this way. But I didn't say that out loud. They are responding to the market, and there is indeed a market for beautiful facades.

I have no problem with sex workers (if they are protected from human trafficking and enslavement.) These women, whatever their other skills, are sex workers.

I do have a problem with men who surround themselves with ONLY sex workers.

That is not allowed here, it was prominently mentioned when you posted in a red banner. It's called a self link.
Sorry
*ban

How many of those fact checking organisations would have flagged Judith Miller's Iraq pieces in the NYT as "deliberatly misleading content"? Or what about the 16 hit pieces on Sanders within 24h at Bezos' rag of a newspaper? And let's not even start about the reporting on the recent night of the long knives in Saudi Arabia ("reform", really? fuck off)...

Point is, the effort to curtail "fake news" regularly goes hand in hand with the suppression of non-establishment views while leaving the main sources of deliberate misinformation untouched. Remember PropOrNot and how Bezos' rag, amongst others, jumped on it? That list included prominent left wing/anti-war sites such as TruthOut, Counterpunch, TruthDig, ConsortiumNews, etc.

Want some examples of "misleading content" or "deliberate misinformation"? Just browse through the articles at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting for a few minutes.

Someone did the right thing by prominently displaying the game Galaga in that arcade. *tips hat*

Dunno.

I think of Megan Phelps-Roper, once prominent member of WBC, now "reformed". She was the sort of "Social Media Manager" for the WBC. She used twitter to further spread their message but, ofc, the world of twitter stares also into you. She began to engage in a sort of dialogue with those that responded to her hate filled tweets and over time the WBC grip on her was chipped away. In the end I think she actually married one of those that engaged with her on twitter. Cool Story. Bro.

Anyhoo. So it can be done but it doesn't happen on the picket line or in protests. I mean, with some of these people you can't even agree on the definition of "human"... I really strongly doubt the value of allowing such groups to have a voice for the sake of having an opportunity to denounce (ostracise?) them further. It takes carefully considered, long term, personal debate.

My feeling is that his is happening not because we have suppressed such ideas for too long and now they are boiling over...they are boiling over because where once discontented individuals were alone with their prejudices and fears now they can find in minutes a group online to agree with. The suppression of these fringe ideologies wasn't the cause, the cause is that the internet seems to have rendered such suppression ineffectual. How we now challenge these festering online dens I'm not sure...

Also, and I hate to go all reducto ad hitlerum here but if there was ever a time, discussing neo-nazis must surely be it.... Hitler spoke and spoke and spoke and his bad ideas didn't fall into the shitter fast enough to save the lives of all the millions of Jews and those that fought against them.

I moved to southern Arizona last year - still have yet to experience one these - but I surely will in the next two months. These dust storms are actually called "haboobs" and are prominent during the monsoon season which is typically June-August throughout Arizona & New Mexico. Which is quite interesting because those are the hottest months and although somewhat dangerous (floods/lightning) the monsoons begin a cooling down process (and immediate relief) which correlates with another 6 months of really nice weather.

how did this thread steer into climate change waters?
heh...god i love this site,and i love all you fuckers as well!

i don't really understand the rehashing of the election,trump is president.it is a done deal.

which is probably why i am struggling with the hillary diehards.politics is not a binary equation,so stop acting like it IS,and for the love of god stop with the condescension directed at people who did not vote YOUR way.ya'all are acting like we are your wayward dog who just took a giant dump on your carpet.

just LOOK at what you have done! LOOK at it! bad dog..baaaad dog.

@Stormsinger and @MilkmanDan were kind enough to share who they voted for,but they should not be put in a position to defend their vote.their vote,their choice and their right.

you may disagree,and that is fine,but to place all the blame on them,and their "like-minded compatriots" is arrogant,presumptuous and condescending.the reason hillary lost is not simply due to a few small holdouts.there are a myriad of reasons,and in my opinion,hillary should take most of the blame.

and what is this purity test @bareboards2 ?
do you mean a person standing by their principles?
remaining steadfast in their moral values?
showing us all that they would rather lose,than give up one ounce of integrity?

are you seriously criticizing people for holding to their own standards of morality and decency?

politics is not binary,there a many mitigating factors and political affilliation is only one aspect.

i have seen friends who voted for trump,and were extremely vocal about their support in the run up to election day,only to become eerily silent the further we got into trumps presidency.many of these people had voted for obama..TWICE..they wanted change.were desperate for change,and now they are finding out,that change may not be what they were expecting.

because the trump presidency is going to one helluva horror show,but there are also positives to consider.it is not a total loss.

i have the seen the very same people who have ridiculed and berated fundamentalist christians for being ideologically rigid,and philosophically immovable.turn around and express the exact same rigidity,and binary thought processes when it comes to their girl hillary clinton.

i was talking the other day with a man i highly respect and admire,who flippantly and casually called me a racist.
my crime?
i had the audacity to criticize obama.
which he doubled down and accused me of being sexist for not supporting hillary,and being critical of her as well.

how is this NOT ideological rigidity?
that to critically examine two prominent public figures automatically equates to:racism and sexism.

this is the metric that i see so many hillary supporters use when dealing with someone that they may disagree.this is a cheap,ill thought and ultimately WEAK counter to valid criticisms.

at what point do hillary supporters stop labeling other people the most vile of terms,simply because they did not step into line with THEIR thinking,and begin to examine the very REAL problems that both the hillary campaign,and the DNC,created for themselves?

or is everybody simply a racist and sexist?
that's it..no discussion.

this is akin to the fundamentalist christian labeling anybody who disagrees with their religion,or has brought up solid criticisms,as being an agent of satan.

" i do not like what you are saying about hillary,so therefore you must be a sexist".

the easiest,and most human,thing we do when faced with information and/or criticism that is in direct opposition to our long held beliefs.is to demonize the person making those claims,and therefore silence any further disruption to our own subjective belief system.

so when i talk about "insulated bubbles",and "echo chambers".that right there is what i am referring to,and it is dangerous.

i refuse to judge anybody on how they voted.they had their reasons,and i may even disagree with those reasons,but they have a right to their vote and who am i to judge them?

rehashing the election,or assigning blame based on ideological differences,accomplishes nothing.the REAL work starts now.trump is in office,and he is gearing up to be an unmitigated disaster.

so get involved.head to your next town hall meeting and speak your piece.start to connect with the political movements in your area and start to put pressure on your local representative.

i think we can all agree that trump is awful on so many levels,but to witness the american people become so politically engaged,so politically active,more active than they have been in decades.it really is inspiring,and all this is due to trump.

if hillary had won,would we see the same kind of newly energized,and politically active public?

i don't think so.

so let us stop with the rehashing.
stop with the blaming.
and get off our asses,step outside our own little,insulated echo chamber and start to engage.

don't know how to step outside your own bubble?
there is an app for that:
https://videosift.com/video/it-is-time-to-pop-your-social-media-echo-chamber-bubble

*oh,and even though i may have alluded to who i voted for.let me state clearly that i voted for hillary.i stick by my dislike of the "lesser of two evils" but come on...trump in the white house?

yeeesh....

before even getting into what's actually said in the video, the question itself is essentially wrong. communism is viewed as worse than fascism in some prominent circles in the US and viewed as literally the same by many people. plus it's a stupid question to begin with.

I'm no expert either, but my late mother was a prominent classical physicist and what I saw from her fight against QM was that its foundations were built on unjustified assumptions going all the way back to the EPR experiments. The trouble is they've built a mountain of a theory on this precarious ground when they should be sticking to what they can prove to be true and working from there.

I guess you can't edit in an invocation later, so *quality *promote.

Might I also suggest the text or method of indicating there's more promoted videos be made a little more prominent. It's currently rather small and easy to miss.