CatBus

CatBus said:

I think I’ve said this before but I think it bears repeating: the word racism means different things to different people. When discussing this topic, it’s pretty normal for some white people to recoil the second the word starts to touch them personally. Because racism, to them, is overt acts, conscious choices, hateful feelings, much more personal. But to others, racism is woven into the fabric of America, much more institutional. If you were born and raised here, you’ve already got some on you. The only question is: what are you going to do about it?

When Michelle Obama said she raised her daughters in a house built by slaves, that was a much more poignant way of saying she got some on her. The more important question is what is she doing about it?

This post probably much more tactfully says the same thing I just said, but in a way people seem to have appreciated at the time, if not now.

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.

*sigh* 😐

Relevant.

For Christ’s sake.

Warbler has shown nothing that would make you think he is racist and to assume that someone is racist without any evidence is just awful. Half of this race talk is just virtue signaling from the left and does nothing to help solve issues in America.

Umm, I think the link was intended to criticize CatBus for calling Warbler racist. The video points out that we are all capable of occasionally doing a racist act, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we are a racist person.

Thanks for the clear up. Catbus, my last message was directed at you and every other self righteous asshole from the left.

I called pretty much all Americans racists in the sense that they are all tainted by growing up with racism, and should that into consideration when making decisions, and I included myself (and women, and minorities) in that. Self-righteous refers to someone who thinks they’re better than other people, not someone who thinks they’re equally culpable. Nevertheless, through this discussion, we have successfully identified a self-righteous asshole.

Never said I was better than you Mr. All Americans are Racist.

Ah, so when you said I was a self-righteous asshole, you meant we are ALL self-righteous assholes, and you are just as bad of one as me. You were being just as humble and circumspect as I was in my observations on race in America – it just wasn’t apparent at first. Thanks for the clarification yourself. I can kinda get behind that sentiment.

Either that or you’re not backpedaling fast enough, Mr. Self-Righteous.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

You mean put together a team that is half black, half white, half male, half female?

No, identity doesn’t predict bias.

It doesn’t would think it would be less likely that a black man would be biased against black people than a white man.

You’d think so. But there are plenty of cases where women can be the harshest judges of women, and so on. Throw identity politics out on the garbage heap where it belongs.

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.

*sigh* 😐

Relevant.

For Christ’s sake.

Warbler has shown nothing that would make you think he is racist and to assume that someone is racist without any evidence is just awful. Half of this race talk is just virtue signaling from the left and does nothing to help solve issues in America.

Umm, I think the link was intended to criticize CatBus for calling Warbler racist. The video points out that we are all capable of occasionally doing a racist act, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we are a racist person.

Thanks for the clear up. Catbus, my last message was directed at you and every other self righteous asshole from the left.

I called pretty much all Americans racists in the sense that they are all tainted by growing up with racism, and should that into consideration when making decisions, and I included myself (and women, and minorities) in that. Self-righteous refers to someone who thinks they’re better than other people, not someone who thinks they’re equally culpable. Nevertheless, through this discussion, we have successfully identified a self-righteous asshole.

Warbler said:

You mean put together a team that is half black, half white, half male, half female?

No, identity doesn’t predict bias. If you’ve got an acknowledged anti-Latino bias, include someone who definitely doesn’t, Latino or not. If the team ends up being all white men, that’s a pretty good warning sign you didn’t do a very good job, but it’s technically possible.

What do you mean by touched by racism?

Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.

Warbler said:

So I shouldn’t be concerned at all that if I hire this person, she is going to need a leave of absence soon?

You should show the same amount of concern as you do with your other candidates may need to do this. Husbands with eight-month-pregnant wives, lesbian moms with eight-month-pregnant wives. Dive right on in to those deeply personal questions. Er, maybe no.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

For those that don’t like the term colorblind:

If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?

Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?

By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?

And this is verified how?

what do you mean?

I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…

The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.

Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.

Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.

The claim of being color-blind is nearly always paired with the reality of being bias-blind.

you mean being blind to your own bias? Well, again I ask what the heck should you do? The best I can do is try to ignore skin color as much as possible and hire based on merit, and skills and qualifications. The best accountant gets the job.

Well, the first step is to be as aware as possible of all of your biases. Including the ones you didn’t think you had at first. The very first baby-step is to stop pretending you’re color-blind. Then there’s a matter of engaging with people who specialize in this sort of thing, attend training seminars, talk to people, listen to people, and so on. Yes, sensitivity training may often be an overscripted feel-good exercise even most of the time, but there’s often some nuggets of useful information if you pay attention. Such is any corporate seminar.

The next thing is to do what you can to counteract your biases. Have your hiring decisions done by a team that might be able to balance out each others’ biases. The team’s only consideration is to choose the best accountant – skills merit, qualifications – just like you said, but you may be surprised how often you disagree on such a straightforward thing. Also, teams are helpful in interviews, such as if there’s the bias I’ve seen a million times where every woman is asked to back up her claims of technical expertise, while men are assumed to have been honest on their resumes. All it takes is one interviewer who asks the right questions when the others forget to, and the whole team hears the answer. On top of that, use tiebreakers that counterbalance your acknowledged biases, that sort of thing.

Admitting you’ve been touched by racism is basically admitting you’re an American. People have survived worse.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

For those that don’t like the term colorblind:

If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?

Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?

By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?

And this is verified how?

what do you mean?

I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…

The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.

Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.

Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.

The claim of being color-blind is nearly always paired with the reality of being bias-blind.

DuracellEnergizer said:

So Trump has taken to referring to himself in the third person now?

He was in a transporter accident with Bob Dole. He’s now BrundleTrump. The only way he can become human is to merge with enough humans that the Trump disappears.

SilverWook said:

Bad idea to do it on the company dime.

I dunno. Seems like he’s on the fast track for a cabinet post or ambassadorship.

Warbler said:

All I know is the overwhelming majority of Conservatives/Republicans are against the US Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage.

Yeah, small government conservatism is definitely falling out of favor, I don’t think you’ll get any argument from anyone about that. After all, there were five conservative justices on the court, and only the oldest sided with the Goldwater conservative argument. The four newer appointees all sided with the position of the newer, more dominant conservative ideology. Reagan is revered among conservatives as a matter of tradition, but few conservatives would touch his policies with a ten foot pole these days.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

Was it conservative when it said gays have a Constitutional right to marry?

My understanding is that 1) conservatism values limited federal government; and 2) family law is traditionally left to the individual states. And therefore, if a state were to grant someone that right, the federal government would let them. What would be a federal issue is whether someone who is gay got married in one state but another state didn’t recognize it as legally legitimate.

I think what the Supreme Court said was states had to allow gay marriages. I think they said a state couldn’t ban gay marriage. I am pretty sure that is not Conservative. I also pretty sure Ferris would agree with me.

The father of the modern American conservative movement disagrees with you, so I guess conservatism is a pretty big tent after all.

Barry Goldwater is the father of modern American Conservative movement? What about Reagan?

Reagan was the first president elected under that mantle, Goldwater was the person who more or less created the mantle. It’s like the difference between Obama being the guy who helped pass the ACA, and the people at the Heritage Foundation who more or less created the ACA.

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

Was it conservative when it said gays have a Constitutional right to marry?

My understanding is that 1) conservatism values limited federal government; and 2) family law is traditionally left to the individual states. And therefore, if a state were to grant someone that right, the federal government would let them. What would be a federal issue is whether someone who is gay got married in one state but another state didn’t recognize it as legally legitimate.

I think what the Supreme Court said was states had to allow gay marriages. I think they said a state couldn’t ban gay marriage. I am pretty sure that is not Conservative. I also pretty sure Ferris would agree with me.

The father of the modern American conservative movement disagrees with you, so I guess conservatism is a pretty big tent after all.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

SilverWook said:

Stinky-Dinkins said:

In practical terms, this is an unsolvable problem. If there’s money to be had, someone will be there to have it… The world is full of assholes. Reporting this one piece of shit will do absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things as even if he gets shut down another will simply pop up in the vacuum of his absence. It’s frustrating, and obnoxious, but there’s really nothing you can do to stop it.

I would, however, be all for exposing who this person is (especially if he’s a member of this site, and I think that’s likely). If he sells on eBay, or accepts Paypal, nabbing his personal details shouldn’t be difficult. I’m always game for a good public shaming. We can strip him naked and march him through the streets - really ring the shame bell the whole time just like Game of Thrones. Everyone will see his beaver, his full wonderful beaver.

That sounds a lot like doxxing, and I’m not cool with that. And it opens a whole can of potential legal worms I’m sure Jay doesn’t need or want. It wouldn’t help identifying if they were a member here to begin with.

YOU CAN’T HAVE A WHOLE CAN OF POTENTIAL WORMS SILVERWOOK THAT’S JUST AN EMPTY CAN.

A CAN CAN OF THAT’S JUST WORMS CAN’T HAVE AN WHOLE POTENTIAL YOU EMPTY SILVERWOOK.

No, this project is strictly theatrical OOT. I have to draw the line somewhere – I don’t even do the 1981 revised crawl.

The size of the font, as well as its boldness and apparent color, are dependent on exposure and cropping–and this, I learned, is not consistent from film to film, nor is it even consistent from subtitle to subtitle within the same film. For example, if the subtitle was added, but then the frame was slightly cropped, that would effectively make that subtitle larger and bolder than a subtitle added to a frame that was not cropped. Similarly, the position of the subtitles within the frame could move.

The fonts I came up with were for a specific purpose–to blend when shown in sequence, but not necessarily to be identical side-by-side. They aren’t designed to be authoritative, and they don’t exactly match any subtitle–they’re more like the median representative subtitle.

IIRC, of the fonts I made, Star Wars is boldest, Jedi is less bold, and you could grab the German ROTJ font for what’s probably the least bold of them all. But they are all the same font, with variations in exposure, etc.

Keep in mind that the graphical SUP files for the alien subtitles are based on actual 35mm prints, not from the font files. While the images for Jedi were made by Harmy (who is skilled in such things), the ones for Star Wars were made by me, and have some flaws. Specifically, each individual subtitle should have some color variation within it, the ones for Star Wars don’t have much. This probably gives them more of a clipped, flat feeling (maybe could be interpreted as boldness) that you don’t see in the Jedi ones. Nevertheless they do have all the variation in size, boldness, and even variable letter forms and letter spacing that you can see in the films.

If you want to use the actual subtitles from the films, use the SUP files. They are much better, albeit not flawless (well, maybe the SUP files for Jedi are…). If you want to use the fonts, well, they’re honestly probably good enough for your purposes, and I’m not looking to improve them because they’re good enough for mine.

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

darthrush said:

postmodernist, speech controlling, identity-politics

Trump grabbed these things with both hands and ran the board with them. At the very least, the overwhelming success of identity politics in 2016 guarantees it a long life.

He used identity politics but he sure as hell had no problem advocating for free speech. If there was one thing I liked about trump was that he stood for free speech. That doesn’t excuse the fact that he’s an egotistical, incompetent, unqualified person for president. But he sure as hell doesn’t stand against free speech like the left does.

You must have missed the rally when he told his supporters to beat up some protesters (and then they did), and the things others have already brought up. Trump’s record on free speech is chilling. The left’s record on free speech is generally good, but you can always find exceptions – i.e. someone who doesn’t really get the nuance, and doesn’t see the difference between the (good) prohibition on school-supported prayer and the (bad) prohibition on students praying on their own.

darthrush said:

postmodernist, speech controlling, identity-politics

Trump grabbed these things with both hands and ran the board with them. At the very least, the overwhelming success of identity politics in 2016 guarantees it a long life.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

Was it conservative when it said gays have a Constitutional right to marry?

Yes, “small government” is a central tenet of Reagan-era conservatism (Goldwater, Buckley, etc), of which conservatives like Justice Kennedy (a Reagan appointee) are a prime example. The court’s moderates and liberal joined Kennedy for obvious reasons. The conservatives who opposed it represented the more recent theocratic/autocratic branch of modern conservatism, which rejects the premise of small government either entirely or as it suits them.

The ruling was quintessential conservatism – Goldwater himself could have written the opinion and been happy with it.

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

darth_ender said:

How does a guy who is so far Left get to be so reasonable and willing to listen to other perspectives? 😉

When you’re on the political periphery, you take allies where you can get them, and that means listening.

Also, to be fair, if I didn’t agree (or at least disagree but understand their position) with a handful of Democratic policies, I’d say the charlatans label would work pretty well there too.

chyron8472 said:

darth_ender said:

I could never, ever be a Democrat, but why does the Republican Party have to suck so much?

Similarly, I could never, ever be a Republican, but why does the Democratic Party have to suck so much?

“I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.”
–Will Rogers

It’s weird how we all can see things so differently. My take on the parties is that we have one conservative pro-business political party that’s kind of horrible, and that’s it. It’s the Democratic Party, the nation’s only remaining political party. We also have a protest party filled with clowns, charlatans, and snake-oil salesmen, but they don’t have any interest in all in government, policy, or really anything other than self-advancement (there are exceptions, but they prove the rule). So until the arrival of a second credible political party, I vote Democratic.

moviefreakedmind said:

Owning a gun also has nothing to do with entertainment. Wanting to shoot some kind of huge, awesome gun at targets at a range (a perfectly acceptable form of entertainment) is different from owning one.

That’s true. If you own a gun and never shoot it, you’re not getting entertainment value at all out of it. Non-shooting gun owners have them strictly for fantasy scenarios and heirlooms.

Three months ago perhaps, this would have been a bombshell. Now, it’s meh. Because if you’ve gone a week without blatant public attempts to obstruct justice, you’re not living in Trump’s America.

yhwx said:

NeverarGreat said:

After all, the right to bear arms is only in the service of a ‘well regulated’ militia.

Hasn’t this been disproven?

Nothing is ever proven. The “it’s all dependent on the well-regulated militia” legal theory lasted a while and is now no longer the standard used by the Supreme Court, which fairly recently recognized an individual right to keep & bear arms that’s not tied to the first clause of the second amendment at all. Legal theories come and go. It’s not science.