CatBus

chyron8472 said:

Apparently Rowling discovered, after having already invented the racist ideals of the Death Eaters on her own, just how close the real world ideology of the Nazis really was. She visited a Holocaust memorial and discovered the lengths the Nazis went to to determine someone’s supposed racial purity.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/author-chilled-to-learn-harry-s-half-blood-status-has-nazi-parallels-1-540890

Wow. To have done a lot of research is admirable. To have independently come up with so many parallels is… icky. My condolences to Ms. Rowling, that must have been a shock to her.

Yeah, Rowling’s Death Eaters can very much be read as a drop-in replacement for white supremacists. Even the name “Death Eaters” is derived from a particularly nasty term the early Nazis sometimes used to describe themselves, so she did some research. Also the fact that their leader is someone they’d normally persecute as a mudblood tells of their complex and twisted worldview.

The Believer is another illustration of some of the crazy contradictions that can be found in white supremacy, and it’s based (loosely) on a true story.

Warbler said:

but . . . Obama is black! I can not believe a white supremacist would vote for a black person. I just can not believe that.

Most wouldn’t, but I’m pretty sure some would. Again, I don’t know any open white supremacists anymore, so I’m guessing as much as anyone, but I can say that white supremacists have lots of special terms for white people who think other races are their equals. One is “race traitors”. And both McCain and Romney fit the bill, even if they may have arguably had subtle racial connotations in their campaign material. And white supremacists do not like race traitors. A lot. And yes, I think many of them probably hate them just as much if not more than they hate nonwhite races. Like I said, there’s a special kind of twisted to their philosophy that actually gets more crazy the more you hear. But the point is, that under some circumstances, some white supremacists would look at Romney and Obama and be unable to make a race-based decision, so would go with something else like economics. Don’t try to make sense of it. The entire worldview is a mashup of madness and idiocy.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t buy that all these racists that wouldn’t have voted otherwise came out of the woodwork to support Trump.

Neither do I, but I think you underestimate the number of racists if not outright white supremacists that vote for Democrats, and even voted for Obama.

excuse me? why would an outright white supremacist vote for Obama?

Because there wasn’t a white supremacist option on the ballot. The logic is a little monstrous, but I’ve lived in terribly close proximity with white supremacists. The whole belief system is more warped than even the simple level of warped that’s obvious on the surface.

I agree that Republicans have a lock on the racist vote, but I think it’s more of an 80% lock than a 99% lock. With Trump, it pretty much jumped to 100% and Dems needed to make up the difference – which they succeeded in doing, but not in the correct states for the Electoral College.

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t buy that all these racists that wouldn’t have voted otherwise came out of the woodwork to support Trump.

Neither do I, but I think you underestimate the number of racists if not outright white supremacists that vote for Democrats, and even voted for Obama. In terms of presidential candidates, neither McCain, Romney, nor Obama really made a big deal out of race. They were all pitching the same sort of “we all get along and nobody owns anybody else” society, just with different tax rates. From my experience in some deeply racist regions of the country, if racism is a big selling point for you, all of those candidates looked pretty much alike in terms of race. Yeah, one was black, but all of them would lock you up if you firebombed a church, so tomayto tomahto on the race issue. So you decided based on secondary issues – economics, usually. And that’s where Democrats usually pick up the uncommitted racist vote.

Trump was different. We haven’t had a candidate as overtly racist as him in generations. All those Obama-voting racists went to Trump. No respectable Democratic candidate could have picked them up. The only solution was to get non-racist people who didn’t vote before to come out of the woodwork, or non-racist Republicans, and that didn’t happen–not in the right states at least.

yhwx said:

What.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/905381817695526912

Will be going to North Dakota today to discuss tax reform and tax cuts. We are the highest taxed nation in the world - that will change.

He only said that because Twitter’s character limit wouldn’t let him say “(except for Denmark, France, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Austria, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands, Germany, Slovenia, Greece, Portugal, Spain, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Estonia, Poland, the United Kingdom, Japan, the Slovak Republic, Israel, Canada, Latvia, Turkey, Ireland, Australia, and Switzerland)”, so he had to just put a hyphen in there as a placeholder.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-prepares-for-harvey-relief-vote/2017/09/06/62919058-92fc-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?utm_term=.27e957faffc4

The rule of stopped clocks, or someone new has access to the pee tape 😉

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

And his supporters moved to supporting Hillary at a faster rate than Hillary’s moved to Obama, so if Bernie’s supporters were being unreasonable, at least they were less unreasonable than Hillary’s.

You know, I don’t trust Daily Kos polling information anymore.

That’s not a Daily Kos poll. It’s an ABC/Washington Post poll, just a Daily Kos article about that poll.

Not when the pollsters had worse aim than an OT Imperial Stormtooper.

The pollsters and the forecasters are different things. There really wasn’t much in the way of good polling at all in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, because nobody was interested in how much Clinton would win by, and that’s one problem with the polls right there. The battleground states were pre-supposed – which does make some degree of sense, why pay for a poll in Wyoming when you know Trump will win? They just guessed the wrong states. Without good polls in the states that matter, you’re forecasting based on incomplete data.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

And his supporters moved to supporting Hillary at a faster rate than Hillary’s moved to Obama, so if Bernie’s supporters were being unreasonable, at least they were less unreasonable than Hillary’s.

They were? I don’t remember that way. I remember it as Bernie supporters being sore losers at the Convention.

Follow the link, and let me know if you dispute it. Bernie supporters moved pretty quickly to Hillary, Hillary’s were much more likely to dig in their heels and held their breath until they turned blue. I suspect the people making noise at the convention were either the Republican operatives I was talking about, or people duped by them. Luckily, as shown by the link, they didn’t represent Bernie supporters as a whole either way.

Sorry, still not convinced. I don’t believe all the those people at the convention supporting Bernie were merely Republican operatives.

Or duped by them. So do you dispute the link showing Bernie supporters rapidly flocked to Hillary, or what? Or do you think the article is true and that my assessment was correct that Bernie supporters were by and large very reasonable compared with Hillary supporters and you still want to judge them based on this non-representative subset? I don’t get where you’re going.

https://youtu.be/drryxL5K9jw?t=4m20s

So, that’s a yes? What, specifically, do you disagree with in the Washington Post’s cited polls? Is it a methodology thing? Do you know someone who did a poll showing otherwise?

Seriously, not even addressing this question, to me, makes it seem like you agree with everything I’ve said (including that Hillary’s supporters were more unreasonable than Bernie’s in this regard) and you just want to shit-talk Bernie supporters anyway because screw evidence. You want to shit-talk the idiots at the convention, fine, I’m all with you on that, but I’m talking about Bernie supporters, the vast majority of whom weren’t actually in attendance at the convention.

chyron8472 said:

I got the impression that many Bernie supporters voted for neither rather than voting for her.

That does not appear to be borne out by the evidence we’re discussing – I’m sure some did this, but certainly a much smaller percentage than Hillary supporters who didn’t vote for Obama – so “many” is taking it pretty far.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

And his supporters moved to supporting Hillary at a faster rate than Hillary’s moved to Obama, so if Bernie’s supporters were being unreasonable, at least they were less unreasonable than Hillary’s.

They were? I don’t remember that way. I remember it as Bernie supporters being sore losers at the Convention.

Follow the link, and let me know if you dispute it. Bernie supporters moved pretty quickly to Hillary, Hillary’s were much more likely to dig in their heels and held their breath until they turned blue. I suspect the people making noise at the convention were either the Republican operatives I was talking about, or people duped by them. Luckily, as shown by the link, they didn’t represent Bernie supporters as a whole either way.

Sorry, still not convinced. I don’t believe all the those people at the convention supporting Bernie were merely Republican operatives.

Or duped by them. H.A. Goodman wrote a lot of articles (published on otherwise left-leaning places like Huffington Post) and had quite a following, even some at this site fell for it. So do you dispute the link showing Bernie supporters rapidly flocked to Hillary, or what? Or do you think the article is true and that my assessment was correct that Bernie supporters were by and large very reasonable compared with Hillary supporters and you still want to judge them based on this non-representative never-Hillary subset? I don’t get where you’re going.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

And his supporters moved to supporting Hillary at a faster rate than Hillary’s moved to Obama, so if Bernie’s supporters were being unreasonable, at least they were less unreasonable than Hillary’s.

They were? I don’t remember that way. I remember it as Bernie supporters being sore losers at the Convention.

Follow the link, and let me know if you dispute it. Bernie supporters moved pretty quickly to Hillary, Hillary’s were much more likely to dig in their heels and held their breath until they turned blue. I suspect the people making noise at the convention were either the Republican operatives I was talking about, or people duped by them. Luckily, as shown by the link, they didn’t represent Bernie supporters as a whole either way.

DominicCobb said:

Jeebus said:

Hillary Clinton says Bernie Sanders caused ‘lasting damage’ in book

Blame game or not, this is pretty much true.

Honestly I think her framing of the whole thing is pretty wrong. Bernie was just offering the same policies you’d expect him to offer regardless of Hillary’s positions – the fact that his positions were sometimes simply more generous versions of hers pointed more to the fact that there wasn’t a whole lot of ideological difference between them on those issues. And this could just as easily be described as Bernie “pulling Hillary to the left” – Hillary offering milder versions of Bernie’s spicy entrees in order to appeal to a broader audience. In fact, I personally feel that does better describe the situation.

Bernie also repeatedly came to Hillary’s aid by taking the high road – loudly and memorably refusing to entertain the e-mail “issue” when there were real policies to be discussed, and giving her a heartfelt, sincere, impassioned endorsement at the convention. And his supporters moved to supporting Hillary at a faster rate than Hillary’s moved to Obama, so if Bernie’s supporters were being unreasonable, at least they were less unreasonable than Hillary’s.

Yes, I thought he ran his campaign far too long, when it was clear he’d lost on Super Tuesday (if not before), but again that’s not really any different than Hillary’s 2008 run, when she also effectively lost on Super Tuesday and created the (dumb) tradition of “going all the way to the convention in spite of math”. And she doesn’t take into account at all that so many of the most vocal “Bernie supporters” were actually Republican operatives and weren’t going to vote for either of them anyway. You’d think she’d be all over a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Frankly Al Gore did a much better job of staying out of the limelight and letting the world dub him “Saint Gore”, savior of the alternate timeline where Bush never became President (regardless of whether Gore would have actually made a good president or not). Hillary’s got an even easier job becoming Saint Hillary, if only she can stop herself.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

If this is the republican solution to some perceived crisis, then it shows me just how heartless and self-absorbed they have become.

There’s a sort of longer-term trend of Republicans drinking their own Kool-Aid. For decades, supply-side economics was just a grift – Reagan and Bush I said the words to get votes, but they had the sense to listen to economists when it mattered. Reagan raised taxes when his tax cuts failed to increase revenue. Bush famously said the truth about voodoo economics before campaigning on it. But Bush II was all aboard the supply-side train and only started to half-listen to sense when America needed to crawl out of the smoking economic crater. Brownback is still on board the supply side train, the solution to the ongoing Kansas fiscal disaster always being more of the same. Basically they’ve been saying the words so long that some of them actually believe this stuff now.

I think it’s the same with immigration now. Republicans have been talking about immigrants taking jobs, causing crime, and surging over the border so long that they actually believe it. Before, it was a cheap two-fer, appealing to xenophobia/racism while also providing a simple (and wrong) explanation for economic woes. You didn’t actually have to believe it, Mr. Tancredo, it was just magic words you could say now and then, and then the votes would just materialize. But now, it’s a belief system. And when you base national policy decisions based on outlandish conspiracy theories instead of facts, you get… well, you get the invasion of Iraq. But you also get the current wave of anti-immigrant policies, of which this DACA business is just one of many.

If presented with the following quiz:

Undocumented Mexican immigrants started leaving the US in greater numbers than they were arriving:
a) Before Obama took Office
b) During the Obama administration
c) During the Trump administration
d) This has not actually happened yet

I suspect most Republicans would answer D. Sadly, I suspect most Democrats would answer C. The correct answer is A.

I’m afraid I have nothing on that at all. It’s funny, when I tell people about Project Threepio, the very first thing they usually ask is about Backstroke…

Actually it’s usually an easier call than that. Most images of people are framed with more dead-space on the bottom than on the top. If it’s a full-body shot, you can cover the legs or the face (legs). If it’s a torso shot, you cover the chest or the forehead (chest). From a general scene composition point-of-view, I understand why the bottom is almost always the preferred location.

This discussion is really just a matter of how to make reading text as easy as possible. If you read text at a single location that disappears and reappears, that’s one thing. But if the text shifts to another location from time to time, not only is it a little jarring, but you also lose some reading time while your brain and eyes make the shift to reading at the new location.

This is made even worse with the burnt-in subs, because your brain sees the burnt-in subtitles at more-or-less the same location as your regular subtitles, and starts to process them BEFORE saying “wait a sec, these aren’t in the right language” and THEN you shift to reading the subs at the new location. Lots of jarring/loss of reading time in that process. Which is also why I think it’s worse with subtitles using the Latin alphabet–you actually have to start reading the text to see that the language has changed! Again, in an ideal world we’d have multi-angle scenes with localized burnt-in subs and so on, but as long as we’re working around them, I want to work around them in a way that’s easiest on the reader. So that sometimes involves shifting the subtitles to a new location and leaving them there until you don’t need subtitles at that alternate location for a long time.

EDIT: And dangit, I just talked myself out of any changes to the adjacent alien subtitles at all. The reason is kids. Subtitles for Project Threepio tend to show onscreen a little longer than your average subtitle, and that’s intentional. It’s because I want kids to be able to follow along, and they read slower. Which also means all those cases that were borderline for an adult aren’t borderline anymore. So thanks for the fire drill everyone! 😕 But I will still be changing the “A long time ago…” and “STAR WARS” subtitles back to the bottom.

moviefreakedmind said:

Again?

Agreed, should be “Make America Gorram Assholes”, no again.

Well, the SRT files don’t shift positions, and the English subtitles don’t shift positions either, so Im not sure that would help. I do my testing with German SUP files.

If you’re running an architecture that supports Wine, I believe you can run TSMuxerGUI in Wine to create an M2TS file that can then be played by VLC. I think there might even be a Linux native version of tsmuxer, but I’m not sure if there’s a GUI.

I am watching for just “flow” issues overall (just watch the movie and see how it feels), and both of the cases where I’m considering reverting back down are very borderline – I could see a reasonable argument either way. It probably wouldn’t take much to convince me to leave them at the top. The difference is that all of the others are clearly better on top, so no argument needs to be made.

TV’s Frink said:

core tenants that sustain our Republic

That’s the problem with putting a real estate developer in charge, right there.

And here is why more white evangelicals aren’t coming out against the Nazis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/05/robert-e-lee-descendant-and-denouncer-quits-n-c-pastor-post-over-hurtful-reaction-to-vma-speech/?utm_term=.c3df7f629de8

IMO if you lose your congregation over something like this, your congregation was beyond salvation anyway. Godspeed, Mr. Lee.

Rondan said:

I agree with you about getting the subs out of the way so that you do not miss important details. But keep it consistent. If you put the subs up keep it up during the dialog. It is very annoying to go up down up down down up down up during a dialog. That is just my five cents.😄

Since you actually expressed exactly the thing I’m trying to avoid, what’s your opinion on my current plan? Basically, no changes to dialogue in Star Wars, but moving some subtitles back down in Jedi.

“Jabba, I’ll pay you triple. You’re throwing away a fortune, here!/Don’t be a fool!” – moved down because although it’s close to a Jabba line at the beginning, there’s a 2.5 second gap before Jabba’s next line. Also, the subtitles are over another shot which allows some mental separation from the surrounding ones.

“You will bring Captain Solo and the Wookiee to me.” – similarly, it’s kind of close-ish on the leading side, there’s a 6 second gap before Jabba’s next line, and it’s another shot.

I can provide demo files in the language of your choice, if it’d help.

Well, I think that’s a benefit of hindsight in general, that you’d phrase things differently. Going into a discussion, you really don’t know which words or phrases are going to either set someone off or go totally unnoticed. Knowing the outcome allows you to do things like “well, what I meant was this, but it got interpreted as that, so I’d say it differently to avoid that whole thing”. Which can be helpful in time for the next discussion, and so I’m glad to hear when people do it.

Because eventually Bill Murray figured a way out of Groundhog Day, right? 😉

I should add that all the changes I’m talking about making are negotiable right until the very end, I’m just approaching an opinion of my own, which I’ll go with unless convinced otherwise.

Also, on the pre-crawl titles – the “A long time ago…” subtitle works fine at the bottom, so I plan to do that. The “STAR WARS” subtitle doesn’t really work anywhere initially, but works at the top or bottom equally well as that title recedes and doesn’t take up the full screen. Right now I’m in favor of moving that one to the bottom too, because my new rule is to only move to the top when it’s better than the bottom, and that subtitle is really equally bad anywhere in the screen.

Any status to report on the disc? Or on the lossless audio/GOUT sync from Mavimao?

On subtitle positioning, I just ran a ROTJ demo I was really satisfied with. The only shifted adjacent subs were C-3PO’s “We’re doomed” and Luke’s “I must be allowed to speak.” Everything else is back in its normal position. I’ll do a similar test for Star Wars, but I’m thinking I may not make any changes there.

Next up: italics. Most subs use italics to specify an offscreen speaker. I’ve been using italics to indicate dialog coming from radios, loudspeakers, recordings, and ghosts. Any preference on this? I’m still inclined to the latter (there’s a lot of overlap, but not 100%)

Finally: SDH cues. Our SDH subtitles are pretty bare, but don’t need to be, since we also have plain English subtitles. We could add more cues for music, etc.

SilverWook said:

Jay already cautioned against taking cheap shots against those who aren’t here to defend themselves anymore.

Ah, will do.