search results matching tag: terminology

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (21)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (3)     Comments (243)   

Dad Saves The Day

BSR says...

These kids today, I'm telling ya...

What does “Lid” mean?

Common terminology used in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s to describe approximately an ounce of cannabis. While the origin of this term varies, many agree that it comes from the specific style of coffee cans used during the 1960s, the lids of which peeled off like sardine tins.

5 Crises Republicans Made up to Distract You

newtboy says...

How, exactly, do we “not let them get away with it” when 1/4 - 1/3 of Americans happily accept the nonsense without thought, and another 1/5+ think MAYBE it’s true, maybe not, but they’re too intellectually incurious and lazy to find out.

Thinking people don’t need to be told any of this, it’s blatantly obvious to anyone who puts forth the tiniest effort to look into any of their claims and the intentional bastardization of accepted terminology to create scapegoats they can target.

The question is how do we get people to start thinking again? I fear as long as “smart” phones and social media are legal, we won’t.

Amazing New Japanese Hanabi Fireworks

newtboy says...

Clearly not. I gave you the professional definition directly from master class. You disagree with them too.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cgi
Any “computer generated image”.

You do disagree with the established definition, and you have every right to be wrong. I have every right to contradict you.

Because your argument is not professional, logical, technically correct, or rational, I’m not picking up on that.

You have no idea what my CGI experience might be. My brother was offered a job at Lucas Ranch (before ILM, before Pixar). I’ve been exposed to computer generated images and the terminology surrounding them since the 80s.

I’m also not trying to use the definition you and your close office mates might have decided is correct among yourselves, I’m using the definition you can find in any dictionary or classroom. You aren’t giving any definition nor any citations to back it up.

Edit: PS- again, what sales pitch?!

kir_mokum said:

i'm not disagreeing with established definition, i'm telling you what established definition is. if you would stop being an internet contrarian on a subject you know next to nothing about and listen to the professional for one goddamn second, you might pick up on that.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Well, you've got your review results, or as you call it, forensic audit results, finally released.....their results closely match the original count, and the official audit results....actually widening Biden's lead by 360 votes!!! All fraud they found was eventually found to be just their misunderstanding of election laws, terminology, and procedures. Most of their recommendations are already state law. ROTFLMFAHS!!!!!

Now what?!

I'll tell you now what, now Biden is refusing to use executive privilege to hide Trump's Whitehouse communications surrounding Jan 6 (it's up to the current president, not the former one). I'm willing to bet the reason Trump wants it hidden is he's got one Hell of a lot to hide. Sucks to be bunker baby.

bobknight33 said:

How do you know it did not happen?
Unless you do a full forensic audit no one can tell when exactly happened.

Sadly Democrats are afraid to look and verify and hence shame Trump on this. Makes one wonder They have shamed him at every chance, every opportunity, even after the election. However wont touch this opportunity. Telling.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Forensic audit. Lol. What do you think that means? Did Trump tell you when he repeated the phrase over and over until you remembered it? It’s a term like “legitimate rape”….sounds fine but it’s a nothing term used to delegitimize audits that don’t use the right wing terminology, even though they are far more forensic in nature.

Funny how much this statement reminds me of both impeachments.....Republicans afraid to look at the charges or evidence, Trump obstructing every witness and request for documents. They had shamed him mercilessly until the election, however wouldn't touch those opportunities. Telling....and politically costly.

If he had nothing to hide, why did he hide EVERYTHING? No administration has withheld documents and witnesses from congress like Trump’s. None has been less transparent or 1/4 as criminal….proven by convictions.

Conversely, Democrats WITH Republicans did look into the obvious baseless whining from Republicans/Trump. They did real, professional audits with reputable non partisan organizations and bipartisan oversight using established rules and methods for actually auditing, not blacklight looking for bamboo or spooge on ballots investigated by delusional conspiracy theorists trying to reinstall Trump….so they did look and verify BEFORE certification…3 times in AZ alone. I know, with the memory of a drunk gnat, you don’t remember that, but it happened repeatedly and in multiple states, nearly every state Trump wanted to toss out.

Why are you afraid to look at the actual audits already done, and insist we wait for the farcical fake audit by a political propaganda company instead?
My guess, the plan is to bankrupt the election funds in any county/state Biden won, decertify their equipment, and make it much harder for them to hold the next election…it’s the only thing that makes sense about the nonsensical partisan vote reviews you now insist on. This single review in one AZ county has already cost the county up to $6 million in equipment they must replace before holding any elections, and that would be 10 times more if they had handed cyberninjas what they demanded, access to every county computer and digital records….+ $1million in public funding…..for absolutely nothing.
You want that repeated across the nation, but only in counties where Trump lost.

bobknight33 said:

Sadly Democrats are afraid to look and verify and hence shame Trump on this. Makes one wonder They have shamed him at every chance, every opportunity, even after the election. However wont touch this opportunity. Telling.

Republicans Try to Dismiss Trumps Second Impeachment Trial

newtboy says...

It would be more convenient to go with a majority vote to bar him from office if it was that simple, but I don't think it really is. (In reality I think that's maybe not the best move, because if he can run and starts a new conservative party, it will guarantee a Democratic landslide because the liberal vote won't be cut in half)
No matter the method, it's imperative that calling for the overturn of a certified election by any means necessary, and sending a crowd to force trial by combat, instructing them to stop the congressional certification, don't let it happen (which is a a direct call for interference in government proceedings only possible by force) be punished not ignored or it begs for a repeat. It's far from just using the word fight, it's saying if you let them certify this election you lose your country, you've got to get rid of these representatives that won't go along with you, and fight hard, you can't let them install Biden, stop it, he's illegitimate and I won by a landslide but Biden stole it, do not let them certify him or you're country is gone they must elect me, I'll be there with you stopping the steal.

I seriously doubt the American people will see it that way, all polls show a majority agree with his policies over Trump's. The election reinforces that.

It's hard to imagine hurting the economy worse than Trump's disastrous pandemic response that continues to cause more damage today because the distribution part of his "plan" was 1/2 baked and 1/4 implemented. Hundreds of millions of vaccines are being shipped to Europe because he wouldn't commit to buying them when he could, even knowing he couldn't buy them later. Any misstep in the response cost lives and hurt the economy horrifically.
Then there's the 8-9 trillion added to the debt not including last year's unprecedented spending spree during a recession meaning the deficit his last year may be well over $4-5 trillion (I've seen estimates of $9 Trillion). The debt and deficit will be hard to screw up worse, but time will tell.

Let's be realistic that the majority of Americans never wanted Trump, so much they voted for Hillary the most despised politician at the time, 3 million more times...it took nothing but not ignoring swing states and not being the most hated candidate in living memory to flip the electoral vote. Trump becoming the most despised candidate in history helped.

It wasn't a few thousand, my recollection is it was hundreds of thousands in most critical states, only a few were even close, only Georgia was as close as 12000, still more than a few, and Biden won easily without it.

The green new deal, if implemented, should create tens of thousands of good paying jobs. Innovation almost always pays off....again, time will tell. I'm of the opinion that it's too late to avoid climate disaster, probably too late to avoid a near total extinction next century without a miracle, but any mitigation is worth trying if it works. I don't want to live on Venus....and don't want my grand nieces and nephews to either.

I'll agree to disagree about guns. I've heard the same fear my entire life, claims democrats will take guns away, I once believed it. It's never happened even when they had the house, Senate, and Whitehouse. I'm pro gun and pro regulation.....a well regulated militia is what the constitution says. I respect your position even if I disagree.

I am a stickler for not fudging terminology. It makes understanding another person's argument impossible if they use words that are just wrong just because other people are misusing them, and is often used intentionally as a means of escaping one's statements by saying they didn't mean what they said, but only when tightly cornered. That's not an accusation, just a peeve. Bob, to name one, insists Trump's never been impeached.

Mordhaus said:

I could quote legal scholars who think otherwise, but since it is kind of split down the middle, you would be able to find just as many that argue that it is constitutional. My opinion goes towards the non-constitutional side. He isn't a sitting President any longer and the only reason Democrats are doing this is because, as you mentioned, it is a much higher bar to convince a jury that using the word 'Fight' means a call to insurrection. If they could manage to force it through the easier method, then they can simply call for a majority vote and block him from running again in 2024.

That is the net goal of the Democrats, because they fear he will win once people realize how badly the new ecological policies and debt from a further stimulus is going to hurt our economy. Let's be realistic in that it took Trump fucking up multiple times, the worst pandemic in 100 years, and the entire Democratic voting bloc turning out for Biden to win by a few thousand in the critical states that gave him the electoral mandate. I can't vote for him again, but there are plenty who would. Mostly poor and middle class working people who are going to be realizing just how bad Biden is going to fuck up the economy in the short term over his appeasement of portions of the green new deal.

We've discussed the gun situation to death. I could post quotes from Kamala and Biden, as well as his stated plan for gun control he put up on his site, but it would again serve no purpose. You feel that nothing will happen or it will only be limited to scary 'assault rifles'. I feel otherwise. We can bang our heads against the metaphorical wall over and over, but in the end neither of us is going to change the other's mind on gun control.

Sadly, in my case, that still means that unless Democrats do a 180 on gun control and illegal immigration I will continue to be forced to vote for Republicans. Also, yes, I mean the trial, but can we not split hairs? It's like asking for a Kleenex and getting nagged that you really meant Puffs.

White House revokes CNN reporters press pass

newtboy says...

Edit: True, Trump didn't say all Mexicans are rapists like some others have claimed, he said all Mexican/central American immigrants are rapists....like I claimed.

They used "accost" because 3 large men tackled a topless woman in tights (so clearly unarmed unless she had a snuke), hard....it's a proper and correct description using the correct terminology. Your inference that they were implying something improper by the police is likely your bias coloring what they said.

Lol. Censor you!? I think perhaps you might look up that word too, because I don't think it means what you think it does. I certainly don't have either that power or desire. I wish only to dissuade you from being an unwitting dupe of an Orwellian movement against fact and truth.

There is no equivalent stupidity or bias on the left, not by half...not by 1/10.
Again, please name reporters that speak at Democratic rallies....from any non right wing network since limiting you to CNN yielded no answer. If the left is just as bad as the right in this regard, that should be incredibly easy to do.

It seems having it pointed out that there is no equivalence is intolerable and like an attack in your eyes, but it's simply fact.

I know, facts are for liberals. The truth isn't the truth. What you see and hear isn't really what's happening....also known as blackwhite/duckspeak.

There is no other main stream network besides Fox who's viewers are actually less informed than people who watch no news at all, and OAN and Info Wars likely perform the same job for minor networks. CNN isn't perfect, but it's viewers actually gain information and become more informed rather than loose it, becoming more ignorant. They are not equivalent.

Briguy1960 said:

https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/


No.
As a matter of fact I do refuse to hear the term accosted used and not have my spidey senses triggered when they were dealing with a potential threat to the potus.
I did indeed look it up to refresh my memory on its meaning at the time I read it to try to see why they would choose to phrase it in this manner.

You are so used to this new twisting of facts that is doesn't even phase you anymore.
Telling me I'm part of a smear campaign is trying to censor me and a perfect example of how the left now operates.
You should be proud.
You have swallowed the propaganda completely.
I have already said Fox is for the most part fluff but that they have some good reporting from time to time.
If that is so offensive to you than the problem lies with the lies you have been fed.
I was speechless when those 2 idiots appeared on stage with Trump and laughed at their stupidity.
Too bad you can't see the stupidity on the left.

Doctors Urge Americans: GO VEGAN!

transmorpher says...

OK well you'd better let the 12,000 or so doctors, researchers, scientists and dietitians from dozens of organisations know that you don't agree with their terminology.......

newtboy said:

Lol. Bait you?! Bwaaahahahaha.
Nope.
I was hoping you would have a tiny bit of consistency and admit to yourself that any diet that includes (according to you) 350g of red meat a week (with no limit on white meat) must, by definition, not be vegan or vegetarian, and admitting that, that you might have stopped pretending they're related.
Glad I checked, because as feared you did not display that kind of consistency.
Apparently you think that's an invitation to argue that a meat inclusive "plant based diet" IS vegan instead of just agreeing with the obvious. I expect you'll continue to pretend the health benefits of plant based diets translate to health benefits of being vegan, knowing full well they aren't related at all. Hmmmm.

You're more than welcome, but I think your vote totals say a lot about how persuasive your arguments are with or without me contradicting you.

Sarah Silverman Loves America | Real Time with Bill Maher

bcglorf says...

As a Canadian I can answer the question on use of the term 'Eskimo', and it is absolutely considered offensive in many circles, Inuit being the proper language to use. You can learn more about all the lengths your language to be 'proper'(for now) here:
http://dragonflycanada.ca/resources/aboriginal-peoples-terminology/

As an added reference, I'm still surprised to here the repeated use of Indian to describe Native American peoples from US television talk shows and such. In Canada using 'Indian' that way is approaching parity with using the N word.

Donna Brazile: HRC controlled DNC and rigged the primary

newtboy says...

And the post 1990 borders of Texas include historically Mexican lands populated by Mexican people...so what. It was sovereign and Russia acknowledged that, agreed to it, and signed binding treaties ratifying it permanently.

Those keys and systems would have been quickly replaced had those treaties not been enacted...enough of them to be a deterrent. Had we not agreed to defend them and Russia agreed to never try to annex or otherwise take them over, they would have been a nuclear nation and safe from Russian expansion.

As I said, not defending them was a violation. I'm not defending the US's actions.
Opportunity kicked off Russian land grabs, make no mistake.

That statement reflects our undeniable obligation under clear international treaty, not any personally desire to be at war.
Nuclear powers often go to war...by proxy. We've been in one in Syria recently. Edit: according to Russia, they weren't there anyway, so they would be hard pressed to complain about US military in the Ukraine fighting what Russia said were all Ukrainians, no?

Regarding collusion-This isn't a legal forum, you can debate legal terminology and specific charges on one, here, we all understand what collusion means and none of us are swearing out specific legal charges.
Definition of collusion:secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose; acting in collusion with the enemy

Edit: As for the coup, many called it the revolution. It was a coup by the populace, who largely thought the elections were rigged for pro Russians. That said, it was probably a violation for us to eventually support it (I think we waited until after Russian incursions, though). It still, in no way, excuses the Crimean or Ukrainian invasions and annexations.

scheherazade said:

Ah, I see you didn't read the links.

Else you would know :

* The post 1990 borders of Ukraine include historically Russian lands populated by Russian people.

* Ukraine's nukes could not be to guard against Russia because Russia had the crypto keys and guidance control over Ukrainian nukes.

* U.S. support for the 2014 coup against Ukraine's government was arguably also a treaty violation. (I don't actually care about this one)

* Government corruption, rising nationalism, and anti-Russian sentiment, are what led to the coup, which kicked off the fighting, which led to Russian intervention, which led to the "land grabs".


(Anti-Russian sentiment was brewing for years before the 2014 coup. You can see it play out in the 2012 language law issue, which was one of the historical turning points leading up to conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#Proposals_for_repeal_and_revision)


Sidenote, this statement is pure insanity : "We should be at war with Russia today over it's murderous expansions"
War with Russia would last less than an hour, and the only winner would be South America and Africa.
Nuclear powers can never go to war. I mean _never_ never.






Regarding collusion, here :
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/opinion/collusion-meaning-trump-.html

"
President Trump declared on Twitter: “There is NO COLLUSION!”
"
There ya go. A Trump declaration that the campaign was not illegally secretly coordinated (i.e. no collusion). Not backwards at all.

The link also explains the irrelevance of the term regarding legal issues.



-scheherazade

Phil Mickelson takes golf advice from young fan

MilkmanDan says...

uBlock Origin here (same as eric3579 mentioned), but the issue wasn't technically an "ad", per se. I guess the YouTube terminology is "embedded endcard", which many channels use to promote other videos on their channel.

The uploader of the original embed did so, in spite of the fact that it completely obscured the ball, and largely obscured the kid's reaction.

So I guess I should have complained about it as "omnipresent (self?)promotion" as opposed to straight-up advertising. But anyway, @eric3579 's uBlock filter from that Reddit link worked to remove embedded endcards from all YT videos for me, and at least in my case I feel like nothing of value was lost by making that universal. Also prompted me to do google searches of reddit for other blocking scripts, with some mixed success. Found one that blocks all "sponsored content" on Slashdot (and works), and one that blocks autoplay video on fansided sports blogs (but unfortunately left the audio playing with no video window to mute/kill it in).


BTW, thumbs-up on changing the embed to one that doesn't have that issue, @Spacey (I think, although I guess with the new script I wouldn't know if it was still there). Wasn't intending to catch you in the crossfire of my bitching about it originally; I know it wasn't your choice to put that endcard in there.

ant said:

Wow, you guys don't use ad blockers?

Can Trump read?

newtboy says...

But a real estate mogul who NEVER reads rental agreements that he signs?
A businessman who NEVER reads contracts that he signs?
That's pretty abnormal.
After 50+ years of doing it, would would expect him (or anyone who can read) to have picked up the terminology, wouldn't you?

Now he's a president who probably doesn't read the laws, executive orders, and military orders he signs and has no experience at all dealing with any of them. Terrifying. If he's not prepared to read fine print, he absolutely should not be running a company, much less a country. Details matter, ignoring them in favor of his interpretation of a verbal summary (that he can't review or compare with other sources) puts his advisors in total control. No thanks!

Can he even read the constitution? How can he defend it if not? I need irrefutable proof to move on to his next disqualifying flaw, because to me this one trumps all others.

asynchronice said:

I think this is a tad bit overblown; I have to review agreements, (T&C/MSA/etc.) all the time and sometimes the wording is INTENTIONALLY vague and broad, and sometimes legal meanings of words and phrases are not the common definitions. It's why you have legal counsel.

I'm no fan of Trump, by any stretch, but a 70-year old dude who doesn't like to read fine print isn't terribly surprising to me.

Is There a Russian Coup Underway in America?

Spacedog79 says...

I think we may have slightly different terminology.

Neoliberalism is a term I take to mean something much wider, nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism as you would see it (I'm presuming you're American?). It encompasses neoconservatism to mean a purist laissez faire globalist capitalism that seeks to maximize profit without regard to such human weaknesses as morality or emotion as far as is possible and that uses politics as a means to that end or if that fails coercion or worse.

No, I'm not a huge fan of it.

newtboy said:

The people you describe are neoconservatives, not neoliberals.

Mark Blyth on Brexit: "revolt against technocracy"

Stephen Fry on Political Correctness

enoch says...

@ChaosEngine

i do not see anyone here defending anything.

now maybe we can view stephen's commentary "dismissive and belittling" as @entr0py pointed out,but i think the deeper issue was prefaced quite succinctly by stephen in his characterization of american,and western societies,as being "infantilized".

where words have become the final bastion of totality in communication and are judged strictly on a word by word basis.so much so that some on the left have been pushing harder and harder to have certain words removed from our lexicon,because they represent negative thoughts/feelings/actions or they may represent a trauma,or horrific violent memory for some people.

but this is the wrong approach.
excising words will not erase those feelings/thoughts/emotions.this will just force people to come up or use different terminology to express those feelings/thoughts.actions that once had words to at least to attempt to express those horrors and/or offenses.

which will just equate to a whole new slew of verbiage being found offensive and in dire need of being castrated from our collective vocabulary.

yet the left (extreme left i grant) appears hell bent on not only attempting to control speech but to also judge those who DO use speech that they find offensive.

this is censorship with prejudice and to claim otherwise is the lie.

just look at your first comment.
you "used" to like stephen fry's opinion,until he became callous and dismissive with what?

words.

but do you REALLY think his attitude and compassion towards those who have suffered emotional trauma is truly dismissive?

well..i do not think so.i have spoken to you enough times to have a modicum of understandings in regards to you,as a person,that you have far more depth of character.

yet it is the WORDS that have hung you up.

look man,words are inert.they are things that are only given life,meaning and context when we add our own subjectivity to them.

words are inadequate.they will ALWAYS be inadequate.
which is why we admire and praise those of us who have a command of words that can reach into our own understandings and extract meaning in a way that blossoms like a spring flower and can create worlds in which we can play,and even share with other people.

i am intimately aware of this deficiency.i do not have an economy of words,and only on rare occasions can i relay,convey and express with ANY form of reductionism.

i struggle to express not only my opinion,but the intent,humanity and compassion of my opinion.

if the extreme left gets their way,the tools we have to express ourselves becomes lesser.

and in the process,WE become lesser.because the tools for dissent,debate,discussion and even..ironically..to expose the more venal and bigoted of our society,will have been reduced to words that offend nobody.

there is danger here,and no good will come from it.no matter if the intent sounds just and the goal compassionate.

freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity.

so while we have a right to free speech.
we do not have a right to not be offended,and maybe we need to be offended sometimes.to shake us from our own self-induced apathy and our adoration of digital hallucinations.

so when the westboro baptist church says the most hateful,vitriolic and disgusting admonishments,all in the name of god.
we can be offended by them,and then ridicule them relentlessly.

would stripping words from the english language prevent this group from espousing their own brand of hate?

of course not.they would just find new words.

so what do we do then?
make words illegal?
criminally libel?

so don't judge mr fry too harshly.
he is just pointing to the dangers of controlling speech and the new trend of the perpetually offended.

the extreme right attempts to control morality,and there is serious danger in that practice.
the extreme left attempts to control how we communicate,and hence how we interact,and there is great danger in that as well.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon