Abby Martin participating with this makes sense. For those unfamiliar, her schtick before was working for Russia Today.

The same way Russia is fond of funding the extreme ends of Antifa and Unite the right clowns. Funding popular dissent and dissatisfaction with America and capitalism is super. However many nuts listen to Zeitgeist crazies may be small, but if that group doesn't overlap with the Antifa crowd, and doesn't overlap with the KKK crowd and doesn't overlap with those outraged by the latest wikileaks 'discovery' it all adds up to a lot of people. It's pretty much public record that Russian intelligence is happily and eagerly funding as many of these organizations they can to foment dissent and dissatisfaction.

It's not some paranoid conspiracy to say this plays into the the hands of America's enemies, it's a fact that is being proven in court. That doesn't mean there aren't piles of truths out there being dug up that make America and it's systems look bad and flawed, but spinning it to make people as angry as possible, and feeding those truths along with as many lies as the target audience will swallow is 'great' propaganda.

So that's a long winded version of declaring this video as russian funded propaganda.

Beginners are the best partners because they don't know what's coming or which way to go. They react naturally to pressure or losing balance. Your technique either works or it doesn't.

An experienced partner can make bad technique look good. A beginner will reveal every flaw in your movement.

Sorry, not quite there yet. There is no way anyone would actually look at that and think "oh, it's a video of a human".

The uncanny valley is one of those instances where the closer you get to perfection, the more obvious the flaws are.

But in terms of a video game character, this is very, very good.

I would love to know a few more details about it:
- how expensive is the rendering? We're just seeing a face on its own. If we drop it into an actual scene, will it still run?

- how well does it animate/lip sync?

Lots of friends and family that love the show, but I never could get into it. So no love for it or urge to defend it. Also having not watched much of it I don't know how good/bad this aspect of the show is. However, I've stopped watching the video at the 7 minute mark as it feels an awful lot like an over analysis of flawed characters. When a show has flawed characters, and something like their ignorance, or sexism is exhibited in a way that the audience is supposed to laugh AT the flaws I don't see that as insidious.

Correct me if the rest of the video has more vulgar examples/clips but it sounds to me like protesting too much.

I'd like to point out that this is exactly how science is supposed to work. A flaw found in a model is corrected and the model is recast.

Climate change isn't as precise as say standard physics, but I have a lot of faith in these people and know that our world has to change to continue to support human life. How we get there can be up for debate, but that we have to change is not.

Design flaw

It's not about it being not to my liking. It's about it being dishonest and incredibly right biased while claiming to be on the left. It's about the typical one set of rules for one side and a completely different set for the other that is how he makes his "points". It's a style of information that only works with those in the bubble and the ignorant, and it's insulting, no matter which side it comes from. He didn't have a single piece of new information or even a new take. Please don't pretend I don't give right wing ideas consideration. I couldn't point out the flaws if I didn't.

I don't waste my time hearing out the far anything. Extremists are to be educated or ignored, not given a soapbox and our attentive ears repeatedly. I've heard all I need from Nazis, fascists, alt right, antifa, anarchists to know their ideas don't hold up to critical examination, there's no reason to keep listening after that, I won't believe them, so what's to be gained? Hearing this weeks talking points? No thanks.

You can listen to the idiots that tell you these extremists represent the left, I say it's wishful thinking, because that's the only way the right can excuse or deflect from the Nazis and blatant racists the right welcomed into the party to win the last election. (To be clear, I may be left leaning, I'm not a democrat).
I was glad to hear the leadership of the Republicans finally publicly tell the Nazis and KKK that the Republicans don't stand with them and don't want their votes after Charlottesville, and I'm still waiting for a similarly dismissive statement from the Democrats about antifa.

Both (most) extremists groups say and do idiotic, barbaric things and should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law at every opportunity....no matter what their political affiliation or leaning. Ends justify the means is the mantra of tyrants, and they come in all flavors.

How can I agree or disagree with such a meaningless statement....racial collectivists? enlightenment? I do agree, both act as if they are opposed to freedom, sanity, civil behaviour, and rationality.

Yes, an alt-righter drove his car into a crowd of protestors, but THEY are the terrorists.

Uh huh.

You're the one who should be ashamed, @bobknight33 for posting this garbage again and again, then refusing to even attempt to defend it when others point out the obvious flaws.

While I agree with the principal of the video, I find their methodology flawed.
It would be better to go outside of facebook/twitter/reddit altogether as these sites encourage echo-chambers as part of their functioanality.

Who will decide? this woman will, or anyone having their rights threatened will decide. I'm saying she appeared to have made a poor decision in this case. While she may be within her rights, you have to remember that cops are just flawed people like everyone else and all she had to do is look at them, smile answer their standard, non-invasive question, and be on her way. Now if they said they wanted to look in the trunk or something then I'd agree with her. But refusing to say hello? or refusing to acknowledge that another human is even speaking to you? just why?

Interesting, though flawed in its premise. I find it hard to believe anyone could speak 137 languages. (7,000 languages / 51 people).

They really ought to admit they are talking about percentages.

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

I'd be more impressed if he'd given one example rather than just assuring us that they're in there; also the supposition that a non-Christian can't understand the intent of the Constitution is inherently flawed; it's the same flawed logic that believes Atheists can't have a moral code; I'm pretty sure that most Atheists would agree that there are a lot of good messages in the Bible, but they just don't believe in the sky god part

ok,that is not fair,i adore that piece from the oatmeal but it really does not apply to this current discussion.

at least in my case,and my commentary.(i do not want to speak for anybody else).

i simply was using the very same metric prager was using to make HIS point,and turned it upon itself,because his logic is obviously biased,and flawed.i was using HIS parameters to come to a different conclusion.

i am not coming from ideological standpoint.i was simply pointing out the flaw in his logic.my own,personal biases and prejudices,have nothing to do with my conclusions.

so what exactly is unbelievable?

that people pointed out that his argument is weak,facile and totally without merit? do you think this is due to some partisan bias? some emotional adherence to an economic or political system?

or maybe his conflation of a socio-economic political system and murderous,despotic tyrants was an incredibly weak tactic to make the argument that communism was "evil".

now you are free to believe whatever you wish,and maybe you think that communism is actually "evil",but if that is the case,then i would suggest that you do not utilize the tactic prager uses in this video,because HIS argument is incredibly weak and flawed,and easily de-bunked.

personal biases and predjudices have nothing to do with this mans shitty argument.

and no offense mate,but countering that people disagreeing with this video is somehow due their own partisan,political philosophy,is just as weak as pragers shitty argument.

prager made a shitty argument,based on extremely flawed logic,in order to push his own biased agenda.we exposed that flaw,plain and simple.

political affiliation had nothing to do with it.

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant