Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 11, 2017

Youtube daily Nov 6 2017

Guess what!

This movie is a huge hit in Mexico!

For more infomation >> Coco Final Trailer REACTION - Duration: 5:49.

-------------------------------------------

Independent News 7 November 2017 Bangla Latest news Today Bangla Breaking News BD News All Bangla - Duration: 14:56.

Independent News 7 November 2017 Bangla Latest news Today Bangla Breaking News BD News All Bangla

For more infomation >> Independent News 7 November 2017 Bangla Latest news Today Bangla Breaking News BD News All Bangla - Duration: 14:56.

-------------------------------------------

DEV Deepawali VARANASI Style | Ganga Aarti | HOWRAH Ramkrishnapur Ghat | Kolkata 2017 - Duration: 5:07.

For more infomation >> DEV Deepawali VARANASI Style | Ganga Aarti | HOWRAH Ramkrishnapur Ghat | Kolkata 2017 - Duration: 5:07.

-------------------------------------------

Josh Gad Jokes, 'Murder On The Orient Express' Was Going To Be A Cartoon | TODAY - Duration: 2:40.

For more infomation >> Josh Gad Jokes, 'Murder On The Orient Express' Was Going To Be A Cartoon | TODAY - Duration: 2:40.

-------------------------------------------

less sleeping people quickly catch cold | कम सोने वाले लोगों को जल्दी घेर लेता है सर्दी जुकाम - Duration: 2:41.

less sleeping people quickly catch cold You are troubled by frequent colds and do

not understand why this is happening, then think once you sleep six hours or less.

If your answer is yes, then this is the reason for your problem.

According to a recent research published in an American Journal, people who sleep for

6 hours or less come easily and frequently in the grip of colds and colds.

Eric Prather, assistant professor of psychiatry department at the University of California,

author of the journal, explains that by taking less sleep you are not only depressed and

irritable, but it also affects you in many other ways.

Professor Prathar said that after studying a group of 164 adults for two months, he has

come to the conclusion that people who sleep six hours or less quickly become victims of

cold and cold.

They studied the level of stress, their mood and alcohol and cigarette addiction.

Apart from this, they have been monitored for a period of seven days and their gold

duration and quality using a sensor like clock.

After this, all the people involved in the study were transported through the nasal drops

(natural drop) to the cold virus.

Everybody's nose mucus was tested daily and tested.

A week later, it was found that people who sleep for 6 hours or less, are more likely

to be 4.2 times more likely to be cold than those who get enough sleep for more than seven

hours.

Professor Prather said that sleep is more heavier than all other factors in case of

colds.

It does not matter what the age of people, their level of stress, their race or education

etc.

Leaving them all behind and sleeping, it decides how much the winter and cold virus can bother

them. '

For more infomation >> less sleeping people quickly catch cold | कम सोने वाले लोगों को जल्दी घेर लेता है सर्दी जुकाम - Duration: 2:41.

-------------------------------------------

The Beatles: Yesterday lyrics (COVER) - Duration: 2:16.

Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away.

Now it looks as though they're here to stay.

Oh, I believe in yesterday.

Suddenly I'm not half the man I used to be.

There's a shadow hanging over me.

Oh, yesterday came suddenly.

Why she had to go, I don't know, she wouldn't say.

I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday.

Yesterday love was such an easy game to play.

Now I need a place to hide away.

Oh, I believe in yesterday.

Why she had to go, I don't know, she wouldn't say.

I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday.

Yesterday love was such an easy game to play.

Now I need a place to hide away.

Oh, I believe in yesterday.

For more infomation >> The Beatles: Yesterday lyrics (COVER) - Duration: 2:16.

-------------------------------------------

Valor | Inside: Full Battle Rattle | The CW - Duration: 1:49.

For more infomation >> Valor | Inside: Full Battle Rattle | The CW - Duration: 1:49.

-------------------------------------------

Meet The Mom Whose Son Survived After Being Clinically Dead For An Hour | Megyn Kelly TODAY - Duration: 10:23.

For more infomation >> Meet The Mom Whose Son Survived After Being Clinically Dead For An Hour | Megyn Kelly TODAY - Duration: 10:23.

-------------------------------------------

Mi Cuñada Quiere Robarse A Mi Hija😭👎💔 | Caso Cerrado | Telemundo - Duration: 20:52.

For more infomation >> Mi Cuñada Quiere Robarse A Mi Hija😭👎💔 | Caso Cerrado | Telemundo - Duration: 20:52.

-------------------------------------------

Mann missbraucht Jungen in seinem Eiswagen - Duration: 4:22.

For more infomation >> Mann missbraucht Jungen in seinem Eiswagen - Duration: 4:22.

-------------------------------------------

EP066: Comic Book Origins - Northstar - Duration: 7:00.

[Main theme]

Hello everyone!

And welcome to another all new-episode of MajestiComic.

Today, we are discussing a character who is very important to the history of comic books:

even if not everyone has heard of him.

Northstar, a.k.a. Jean-Paul Beaubier, is the first character ever to come out as homosexual

within the pages of a comic book.

When writer Chris Claremont and artist John Byrne first created Marvel Comics' Northstar,

he didn't have much of a backstory.

The character was created to be a part of a Canadian mutant team called Alpha Flight,

which, in Byrne's own words, was basically just meant to be an antagonistic force for

the X-Men.

In issue number 120 of Uncanny X-Men in 1979, Northstar and the rest of Alpha Flight appeared

for the first time, when they were trying to capture Wolverine.

The Canadian team then went on to have their own series in 1983, but John Byrne was not

originally very wild about this idea.

He didn't think that any of the characters in the team had a strong origin story, so

he was sure that the series would be a flop.

(Which, in reality, it sort of was.)

To flesh out the story, he decided to make one of the main characters homosexual, and

he believed that Jean-Paul Beaubier was the perfect choice.

Although Byrne was happy with this choice, though, and although the entire creative team

knew that Northstar was gay, at the time, no one could make any real mention of it in

the comics.

Marvel's editor at the time, Jim Shooter, had a very strict policy against including

homosexuality in Marvel's comics, and the Comics Code Authority, which we profiled in

a previous video, forbade any instance of homosexuality in comics as well.

So, Byrne was limited to having Jean-Paul give subtle hints about his sexuality, and

to stay away from dating women.

The reason behind his lack of interest in the opposite sex was attributed to his desire

to be a world-famous skier, though, so it is possible that many fans didn't pick up

on this particular aspect of his personality.

It wasn't until 1992 that Northstar was finally allowed to come out of the closet.

After finding a baby dying of AIDS in an alley during a battle, Jean-Paul becomes an adoptive

father, but this doesn't last long.

The baby, whom he named Joanne, dies just a few weeks later, and Northstar and the rest

of Alpha Flight dedicate themselves to promoting awareness of AIDS and HIV.

In the interest of this new purpose to his life, Jean-Paul declares "I am gay," and

the world of comics is changed forever.

In spite of the fact that Alpha Flight wasn't a very popular series in the Marvel franchise,

this issue sold out completely in less than a week.

People were stunned by Northstar's coming out, and devoured the issue to get more information.

Oddly enough, though, this was pretty much the last mention of his sexuality for the

remainder of the Alpha Flight series, which ended two years later.

As the world changed, though, and both fans and critics became more open to and about

homosexual storylines, Jean-Paul was seen as dating men, and eventually marrying a man

named Kyle in 2012.

This was the first same-sex marriage to appear in any comic book, and it paved the way for

a more accepting comic book community.

His homosexuality, though, is not the only thing you need to know about Northstar.

His origin story is an interesting one, and it begins shortly after Jean-Paul is born.

He and his twin sister, Jeanne-Marie, were immediately plunged into tragedy when their

parents were killed just a few days after their birth.

The two infants were sent to live with their mother's cousins, who soon discovered that

they couldn't afford to raise both children.

So, these new guardians sent Jeanne-Marie to a private Catholic school to be raised,

and Jean-Paul eventually ended up in foster care when these same guardians died when he

was just six years old.

Neither of the twins was aware that they even had a sibling, so their lives took completely

different paths.

For Jean-Paul's part, he became a rebellious, angry teenager who committed various small

crimes until he eventually joined a terroristic separatist movement in Canada.

After realizing that this group was far too violent and uncaring for his nature, though,

Jean-Paul quit the movement and became an Olympic skier.

Being a mutant, he had incredible powers of speed and agility (he is even fast enough

to injure the Hulk), which made him an incredible talent on the slopes.

Later, he would wonder if he had ever been a great skier, or if he had just been cheating

by using his powers.

When this happens, though, he has already joined Alpha Flight, and ultimately has another

purpose in his life as well.

When Jean-Paul becomes Northstar and joins the Alpha Flight team, he is surprised to

discover that another member of the team, called Aurora, is none other than his long-lost

twin sister, Jeanne-Marie.

The two reconnect, and begin a strong but tumultuous sibling relationship in which they

alternate between making each other strong (literally and figuratively, as when they

touch at first, their powers are multiplied tenfold), and basically canceling each other

out.

Jeanne-Marie is also a problematic partner for Jean-Paul because she has a split personality.

One of these personalities accepts him and his sexuality, and loves him, and the other

does not support his life choices.

It is an odd relationship with many ups and downs, but at the end of the day, the two

love each other, and Aurora is one of the most important people in Northstar's life.

Northstar eventually retires from the Alpha Flight team and writes a memoir called Born

Normal about his status as both a gay man and a mutant.

If this sounds like something a famous person would do in real life, it should, because

that was exactly what Marvel was going for.

Northstar is a bit of a celebrity, and inside the comic book, he uses that celebrity to

get the word out about the causes close to his heart, just as the character itself is

used by Marvel for that same purpose.

Later on, Northstar joins the X-Men, and appears in many of Marvel's other comic lines.

He is a controversial character in many ways, but he is also arguably more real than a lot

of other comic book characters of his time.

Although the reason behind Northstar's homosexuality was originally just a ploy to flesh out a

stale plot, his status as a strong, gay male character has inspired a lot of people to

be happy with who they are, and has pushed other comic book publishers to start creating

and embracing gay characters as well.

Now a more diverse range of comic fans can see themselves in the pages of the comic books

they love, all thanks to Northstar.

What are your thoughts on Northstar?

Let us know in the comments!

Don't forget to subscribe to the MajestiComic channel as well, and to follow us on social

media on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.

You can also check out our website at www.majesticomic.com.

Thanks for watching!

Until next time.

Bye!

[Credits theme]

For more infomation >> EP066: Comic Book Origins - Northstar - Duration: 7:00.

-------------------------------------------

Self-Driving Cars Will Make Most Auto Safety Regulations Unnecessary - Duration: 7:08.

Nobody knows what the self-driving cars of the future will look like.

Once you no longer need a human in the front seat operating a vehicle,

automakers can rethink every aspect of car design.

Since the late 1960s, however,

the federal government has enforced detailed safety standards

governing the physical makeup of the car.

Virtually every part of the car has had a standard written about it.

There's about a hundred different subjects that have been covered

both in advance notices and in actual standards.

The federal rule books, which have expanded over the years,

have specifics on everything from rearview mirror and steering wheel placement,

to the shape of the vehicle and the exact placement of the seats.

Since self-driving cars don't need rearview mirrors, steering wheels,

or even seats necessarily,

what should the federal government do with it's roughly 900-pages of regulations?

I will make the contention that will rattle the cage

of some people in the auto regulation business,

that basically the entire vehicle code can be boiled down to

be safe, and do not unfairly get in the way of other people.

Brad Templeton is an entrepreneur and software architect,

who has worked as a consultant with Google on its self-driving car project.

He says most regulation will become unnecessary and detrimental

now that motor vehicles are becoming essentially computers on wheels,

meaning software, not just hardware, is essential for safety.

It's necessary to bring that tried, true, trusted means of regulation to bear.

John Simpson works at the California-based nonprofit Consumer Watchdog.

He says that the transition to driverless cars

doesn't mean we don't need stringent safety standards.

You don't say the algorithm will be written this way, this way, this way and this way.

What you do is you set a standard that says

the vehicle shall be able to do X under Y circumstance.

But the switch in emphasis from hardware to software

could change the incentive structure in the car industry

in ways that make government oversight less necessary.

One difference is that when companies discover a safety flaw

they'll have every reason to fix the problem immediately.

With today's cars, that hasn't always been the case.

Take a classic example,

General Motors found a flaw in the ignition switches and they didn't do the right thing.

The American public were failed by a corporate culture

that chose to conceal rather than disclose.

Replacing every ignition switch was very very expensive

and so they were afraid of that cost.

But the safety problems of the future will primarily be bugs in software not hardware,

so they'll be fixed by sending ones and zeros over the internet

without the need to return hundreds of thousands of vehicles to the manufacturer.

Replacing software is free, so there's no reason to hold back on fixing something.

Another difference is that when hardware was all that mattered for safety,

regulators could easily inspect a car and determine if it met standards.

With software, scrutiny of this sort may be impossible

because the leading self-driving car companies are developing their platforms

through a process called machine learning.

Machine learning certainly doesn't mesh in with traditional methods of regulation

or of software development, frankly.

With this method, the vehicle recognizes patterns in its environment

and refines its own system through driving experience.

But machine learning, which is a form of AI, is developed organically,

so humans have limited understanding of how the system actually works.

And that makes regulators nervous.

Templeton fears that our desire to understand and control the underlying system

could lead governments to prohibit the use of machine learning technologies.

It turns out that they do a better job, but we don't know why,

we'll be in the situation of deliberately deploying the thing that's worse

because we feel more comfortable that we understand it.

John Simpson says extreme caution is warranted

because software in cars isn't like software in other contexts.

It's one thing to test Gmail in beta mode

the glitches and you lose your messages and you say

'oh hell's bells I lost my messages.'

and software that when it glitches actually might kill you.

And I think that's an important distinction to make.

That these need to be perfect before we allow them on the roads

is a mindset that has infected a lot of urban planners

and a lot of, just the general pro regulation set.

Marc Scribner is a senior fellow at the free market think tank

the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

He says that its this mindset that could cost lives on the highway.

Delaying self driving car technology means we are going to see additional deaths

that we could avoid if we simply would've allowed these vehicles on the road

that are not perfectly safe but still safer than the cars we have today.

The computerization of driving also has an impact on how we build and maintain highways.

Some transportation planners say that to prepare for self-driving cars

we need to construct smart infrastructure

that communicates directly with vehicles.

Templeton says that as driving become a software-based industry,

the physical highways should mimic the internet.

So the internet, we like to call it the stupid network

and that's 'cause the network is really really simple.

When you talk about cars you talk about stupid roads and smart cars.

You don't try and make the infrastructure smart,

you make the infrastructure as basic as possible,

and you put the intelligence in the cars where it's being built by lots of competing companies

and that's where you get the piece of innovation that shook the world that the internet had.

If we need to install all of this new electronic infrastructure on highways

and we're having problems filling potholes,

just from a pure budgetary and management perspective, you're dreaming.

Physical infrastructure takes decades of planning and implementation.

Templeton says self-driving cars provide an opportunity

to make the roads quite a bit dumber than they are today.

You take what infrastructure you do need to have and you move it in the car.

An example is, the maps that google uses for their car to drive

and they mapped all the roads so they don't need anybody to paint new lines on the road.

They use that virtual infrastructure much cheaper, much more flexible,

much more ability to change your mind about what you want.

Auto safety technology, driven by the private sector

is evolving much more rapidly than the federal regulations.

And some of them, right now very clearly stand in the way

of consumers adopting these safer technologies.

The more real danger is that the benefits of this technology

will drive us to ignore the necessary safety regulations right now.

the impact that computers will have on society is really really big here.

You need a world where people are free to come up with new innovations

that everyone else thinks they're crazy.

For more infomation >> Self-Driving Cars Will Make Most Auto Safety Regulations Unnecessary - Duration: 7:08.

-------------------------------------------

DIY Coin Automatic Sorting Machine Using Cardboard at Home - Duration: 7:05.

TULE - Lost [NCS Release]

Jim Yosef - Speed [NCS Release]

Ship Wrek & Zookeepers - Ark [NCS Release]

For more infomation >> DIY Coin Automatic Sorting Machine Using Cardboard at Home - Duration: 7:05.

-------------------------------------------

Investigating & Reporting Proves Racism - Duration: 17:51.

[Music]

So I was pointed to...well a mess of a video really.

Perhaps some of you will recognize this guy once I start the video.

As always, a link will be in the description to see the original, full version and I will

include everything I think is necessary for context...

So why don't we just jump right into this one?

Computing Forever "Alright guys, so an impromptu video here but people have asked me to talk

about this because I put a thing up on on Twitter about it and uh- [chair squeeks] squeaky

chair.

So [laughing] USA 9 in America has put out oh my god DEFCON 12! DEFCON 12!

Major breaking news white supremacy is a wash on college campuses don't you know..."

USA 9 you say?

Can't say I'm familiar so let's take a look.

That appears to be a legitimate news broadcasting station, from what little I can tell glancing

at their site.

Of course, they're a Washington DC station, not something broadcast throughout the country,

so it's not really a surprise I haven't heard of them in Southern Illinois.

So they look legit, but unfortunately, I can't get any information on their biases

or tendency to report things factually.

This is the result for WUSA9, while more specific searches oddly bring up pages of unrelated

results.

I suppose this is probably fairly irrelevant for the moment, other than showing this apparently

isn't that commonly relied upon as a source.

Go on...

Computing Forever: "Not true.

Actually the opposite.

Hatred of white people is mainstream it seems.

In the media, in academia, in entertainment, in the workplace, right"

Perhaps it is some places.

Certainly I hear PLENTY of insistence that this is the case absolutely everywhere.

I wouldn't mind seeing something indicating how prevalent it really is, or what part of

each area has these issues.

But while we're dealing with anecdotes and examples, I haven't seen any of it.

I happen to be white, though a woman so likely viewed as more oppressed by those you appear

to think control things and less so by those you appear to agree with.

I've lived in three states, all far more toward the middle of the country than anywhere most

of the examples usually come from.

Within those states, I've lived in five different cities or towns each located in a different

county (or in one case, no county at all).

I've also recently been to part of Florida.

Not once have I dealt with any kind of hatred based on my skin color.

I've had some issues because of my economic status, what brand of supernatural nonsense

I was interested in at a time, and even what I was or was not able to readily do, but never

because I was white.

I haven't even witnessed anybody making any racist remarks or the like toward white people

if we're discussing in-person only.

I can't actually say the same when it comes to some other demographics, though.

Of course, none of this actually means that it doesn't happen to people - I'm sure it

does - just makes it a little hard to agree that it is "mainstream."

After all, something mainstream is, by definition, something normal and accepted.

Hatred toward white people is neither anywhere I've spent enough time to know about.

He then goes on to list measures meant to counter perceived discrimination and mentions

having covered it ad nauseam before.

I won't get too far into them right now.

Though I will say that whether any given program (or even the idea of the programs) is beneficial

is a worthwhile discussion to have.

Reasonably.

Engaging the ACTUAL arguments for or against, not straw men or extremist examples.

Then into the motives of, as he called it, the "liberal media."

Again, not what I'm interested in here.

Nor am I interested in arguing about the various examples provided, especially as I would have

to look into every single one.

But even if I granted, just for the sake of this discussion not that I really agree, that every single

that every single example mentioned was legitimate...

And even if I also granted, whether I agree with it or not, that some untold number more

examples could be found, AND that the mention of it being "everywhere" was hyperbolic...

All of this STILL would not show that it was normal, that it was accepted, that it was mainstream.

No more than showing examples of crime makes crime a "mainstream" activity or career path.

And it also has little to do with the incident here, other than perhaps showing the background

of why things occurred the way they did.

Computing Forever: "we live in a time where it's totally okay for you know black per-

and it should be, as it should be - for a black person to walk down the street with

a t-shirt saying black and proud or black lives matter something like that or an Asian

person to do the same with Asian proud what-have-you but if a white person does that you know they're

a neo-nazi or whatever"

So...I don't entirely disagree here.

If I were looking around from the outside, at even the so-called "mainstream" media sources,

let alone the alternatives with usually a very different slants, I'd see that as the case as well.

And certainly any of the above should be able to wear something like that.

Who cares?

But unfortunately words do convey meanings. Meanings that often beyond even

the sum of the definitions of the words themselves.

And even when they don't, things can be misinterpreted.

And actually because of what words can come to mean from their use, the area I live in now

and the one I used to live in would both be pretty hostile toward a black person with

a black lives matter t-shirt.

Because of the protest movement and what it is most known for, many people would take

that statement as something FAR more than stating their life matters, even to the point

of seeing it as anti-police, having a victim mentality, supporting terrorism (though they

might not label it as such), and/or hating white people.

And similarly, explicitly pro-white statements often get assumed to be supporting white supremacy.

Even though neither one's necessarily the case.

But here in the US, all of the above would still be allowed. It is completely

legal to wear a shirt saying any of those things, regardless how people may

take them.

And that is as it should be, at least in my opinion.

But that doesn't mean, and shouldn't mean, that people won't say anything about any of

them.

It doesn't mean that nobody will judge someone wearing any of those shirts.

It doesn't even mean it won't influence how other people interact with someone wearing

one of those shirts.

It just means that they're allowed to do it.

Computing Forever: "leftists are always banging on about how there's institutional racism

and how somehow the system-the game is rigged against everyone else who isn't white.

But the reality is what they've actually done with social justice and all these programs

is that they have introduced institutional biases and racism, but it's against white

people.

And so obviously you're gonna have the development of a movement that advocates on behalf of

white people and it's not for, in the instance-in the interests rather - of white supremacy.

It's actually in the interests of once again leveling the playing field so it goes back

down to being about merit - the best person for the job, the best person who gets the

the scholarship at college, or whatever it might be."

If it is genuinely an attempt to go back to a merit based system, and the programs are

a problem in and of themselves not merely need to be modified to offer the correct proportion

to white people, why on earth would anyone start advocating on behalf of white people?

You don't remove something by trying to create it all over again for another group.

If people are trying to argue against [meant for] the removal of biases in favor of other groups - which

is what is really being discussed here. It's not a policy that says "if a person is a straight

white male, exclude them" but ones that can be argued to have a similar impact by allegedly

giving undue consideration if the person is part of any other demographic -

then do THAT. Argue that case.

That's a discussion worth having, and one that may have some surprising sources of agreement.

But it's not the discussion that is started by arguing that straight, white, cisgender,

men without any disabilities are the real oppressed group that needs advocacy.

Computing Forever: "So this is an absolutely extraordinary story which should go viral

everywhere.

WUSA9 has taken the bait which was put out there I believe on might have been 4chan or

some social network like that, but obviously the people who engaged and ran this this program

- basically there's some fliers that were put up around a college - they knew what they

were doing and their intention was clear.

Their intention was to highlight just how racist against white people the mainstream

media are so let's have a look at this."

So, real quick before we watch:

What you're saying here is that some network, probably one such as 4chan which is known

for working as a hub for organizing trolls, created some kind of flyer to highlight

just how allegedly "racist against white people" the so-called "mainstream media" is.

They then put up these fliers which are, by your own and as you later show their own admission,

clearly intended to cause a particular reaction.

Clearly deliberate emotional manipulation.

Admittedly an effort at creating propaganda.

Then a single TV news station for the Washington DC metropolitan area picked up the story.

And because you've found here one single news station that is so rarely cited it doesn't even have an entry

in a fact checker that reacted in any way remotely like they expected, that reaction should go

viral and proves the point of the obvious and admitted trolls clearly attempting to

create propaganda.

Do I have that about right?

But yes, lets watch this...

[Dramatic Music Playing]

News Ancor: "The news at eleven continues

with a disturbing story out of Montgomery County."

Computing Forever: "Oh my god!

A disturbing story.

Dramatic music.

Oh my god this is serious.

What- what could it possibly be?"

[Dramatic Music Continuing] News Ancor: "Students found fliers taped up

at a high school that say"

Computing Forever: "Fliers?

Oh my god!

What do these fliers say?"

[Dramtic Music Continues] News Ancor: "it's okay to be white."

Computing Forever: "I'm not seeing a problem.

It's okay to be whi- I mean if it was it's okay

to be black or...

[imintating opposition] "Oh yeah, yeah, Dave, Dave, Dave, Woah, Woah, Woah, Woah, Woah,

It's okay to be white is different from it's okay to be black or it's okay to be Latino

or or Asian.

It's okay to be white has connotations, you know.

I mean because all white people are guilty of slavery even though more people fought

to end slavery than ever engaged in it.

But, you know, that's that's neither here nor there, Dave, okay.

I mean whites by their by their nature...

[normal voice] Yeah.

If you believe those kind of things, by the way, you've been watching television far too

much.

Stop watching the mainstream media."

Maybe you should take your own advice there.

I was going to leave the ridicule of this overreaction uninterrupted.

Unfortunately, it went straight from that into likely strawman territory in your perceived

opposition and then that suggestion.

Funny thing is that you, as with most people that I hear tell people not to consume the

so-called mainstream media, appear to be taking a handful of sources and letting them get

you not only worked up but convinced that everyone is out to get you.

You know, the same thing you're claiming they're doing to at least some group of those who

disagree with you...

Projection much?

News Ancor: "and now there are some racist online threats connected to them.

Here's Stephanie Ramirez."

Stephanie: "Here's what's going on.

Yesterday these Flyers were posted to at least two different locations: the University of

Maryland and Montgomery Blair high school in Silver Spring.

The high school even caught the poster on surveillance video."

Computing Forever: "the best thing that they could have done here is not report on this story

and you're about to see why."

Stephanie: "when I asked the school spokesperson what was going on he sent me a web link to

an older post that shows this was planned."

Computing Forever: "well, of course, it was planned.

I mean someone had to type up the thing and plan to stick it somewhere.

But yes, there is actually a story behind this."

Stephanie: "the page even says what to write oh and the post also says this."

Computing Forever: "Right...So this is the reason why you...Just play it."

Stephanie: [reading]

Computing Forever: "yeah, yeah so just reading that again

[reading] "We expect the anti-white media" [normal] "Of which these guys are obviously

a part because they're making a big deal about 'it's okay to be white.'

Oh my god, Heaven prevent!" [reading] "we expect the anti-white media

to produce a shitstorm about these racist hateful bigoted flyers."

[normal] "right and thing is they put out bait, you prove them correct.

They were able to play you.

And here's the thing that fair enough, you took the bait, right.

I expect you to.

The mainstream media not that bright.

But you're admitting that you took the bait.

[laughing] What the hell?

It's just unbelievable!"

"Right."

[reading] "with a completely innocuous message."

Okay, okay, enough of that.

I get it.

You find it hilarious that this one individual news station took the bait.

And fair enough, that's pretty funny...but here you're going on and on like everyone

is going to treat the whole world like an unfortunately large number think the internet

must be treated.

I mean you've taken the concept of don't feed the trolls, which doesn't even work on anything

larger than an individual level online - the trolls just look for new targets or ramp up their

attempts - and then you've applied it to the physical world, to a meatspace scenario

and even to news reporting.

The fact that something is clearly trolling doesn't mean it's going to be ignored and

treated like it's harmless.

It doesn't mean it is harmless, even if this particular instance probably was.

And on top of that,

You have just taken a source that may or may not be mainstream even in its small area and

treated it like it's every source for the entire giant country it's from, the entire

mainstream media.

But there is something else said I have to address.

Stephanie: "the high school's principal says this was posted to ten exterior doors to the

school and that this appears to be a concentrated effort to foment racial and political tension."

Computing Forever: "No.

Okay.

The opposite is actually true.

That has already been fomented by the mainstream media.

Alright.

That's being fomented by you.

Already.

By supporting black lives matter and all of these identity politics movements and antifa

and everything else."

Actually, that's not at all evidence that "the opposite is true."

The opposite would be an attempt to prevent or calm such tensions.

Whether another individual or group is guilty of the same thing or not has absolutely no

bearing on if that is what was being done here.

Hypocrisy does not reduce factuality.

Furthermore, by the very admissions you have made and shown, this IS what was being done.

This was very clearly a calculated effort to stir up a particular response.

By the same admission, this response that was intended was one that involved racism.

It's actually very clearly an attempt to take an already volatile situation in society and make it

explode, albiet for the stated purpose of proving how bad a particular group is.

Computing Forever: "you want to end racism it helps if you stop talking about it and

stop obsessing about it.

And it definitely helps if everybody is treated genuinely, genuinely equally so affirmative

action has got to go."

Where in the entire history of civilization has a problem been ended by people ceasing

to talk about it?

Yes, everybody being treated equally in whatever context discrimination is to be removed from

is necessary.

And to that end, again, whether a program is beneficial or harmful is well worth talking

about and affirmative action is no exception here.

But that doesn't get done by pretending there's nothing to talk about, and it doesn't

get done by flipping things around and pulling the same kinds of nonsense you're allegedly

fighting then saying you're doing nothing wrong because someone else did it too.

But while we're looking at hypocrisy and double standards in what might have been the ultimate

form of irony, let's replay what he just said there.

Computing Forever: "You want to end racism it helps if you stop talking about it and

stop obsessing about it."

and look at how he ended his video, after some discussion about the comments and mainstream

media again.

Computing Forever: "sadly we live in a society where we judge not on the content of a person's

character but on the color of their skin.

Anyway, thanks for watching."

So...which is it, Dave?

Do we end racism by not talking about it, or do we talk about how society judges based

on the color of a person's skin?

Thanks for hearing me out!

As always, civil discussion, suggestions, and constructive criticism are welcome in

the comments or via social media.

Feel free to rate, comment, share.

If you want to hear more from me, subscribe and click the bell for notifications.

And check out the description for any sources I used.

[Music]

For more infomation >> Investigating & Reporting Proves Racism - Duration: 17:51.

-------------------------------------------

Tienes Un Hueco En La "Academia En Crecimiento" + Sorteo De Productos - Duration: 5:45.

For more infomation >> Tienes Un Hueco En La "Academia En Crecimiento" + Sorteo De Productos - Duration: 5:45.

-------------------------------------------

Multiplatinum Singer Andy Grammer On His New Baby Daughter Louisiana: 'She's The best' | TODAY - Duration: 2:49.

For more infomation >> Multiplatinum Singer Andy Grammer On His New Baby Daughter Louisiana: 'She's The best' | TODAY - Duration: 2:49.

-------------------------------------------

Blake Shelton On New Album 'Texoma Shore,' 'The Voice,' And Hoda Impersonating Him | TODAY - Duration: 4:14.

For more infomation >> Blake Shelton On New Album 'Texoma Shore,' 'The Voice,' And Hoda Impersonating Him | TODAY - Duration: 4:14.

-------------------------------------------

সরাসরি আজকের রাতের সর্বশেষ বাংলা খবর চ্যানেল 24 লাইভ ৭ নভেম্বর ২০১৭ Channel 24 News Today - Duration: 17:40.

bangladesh news 24

For more infomation >> সরাসরি আজকের রাতের সর্বশেষ বাংলা খবর চ্যানেল 24 লাইভ ৭ নভেম্বর ২০১৭ Channel 24 News Today - Duration: 17:40.

-------------------------------------------

GOP Slips Provision In Tax Bill That Makes NFL Players Regret Kneeling, Saves Americans $200 Million - Duration: 3:27.

Things had been pretty good for the National Football League for quite some time.

Then a completely avoidable controversy happened.

Someday in the future, business students will revisit the way that the NFL responded to

the totally unnecessary situations that arose from the National Anthem protests as an example

of how not to deal with a contentious issue.

Rather than nip it in the bud, the NFL allowed the problem to metastasize to unsightly levels.

League officials are now in scramble mode to repair the damage done to a brand that

once seemed impenetrable.

As tends to happen during dark times, problems are beginning to snowball for the league.

The Western Journal shares another problem that the powers in the league offices are

wrestling with.

The GOP tax plan unveiled Thursday by Republican members of the House reportedly contains a

provision that would prevent professional sports teams, including the NFL, from taking

advantage of tax-exempt municipal bonds, a government service usually reserved for local

communities.

"Generally used for roads, hospitals and the like, a number of communities have extended

them to help out sports teams, usually as a way of enticing a team to stay in a community,"

The Washington Times reported.

"Axing the break would save $200 million over the next decade, according to early estimates."

As reported by Reuters, "(o)f the 16 NFL stadiums built or renovated from 2000 through

2014, 13 were financed in part by tax-exempt bonds with an average financing worth $360.2

million."

The total costs of these bonds was an estimated $3.7 billion.

The NFL has gotten what it wanted for decades, and there hasn't been much more than a peep

about that.

That's changing.

Speaking in late October on "Fox and Friends," Rep. Matt Gaetz shared his plan to add a provision

to the tax reform bill that would eliminate tax loopholes for any NFL teams that protest

the national anthem, according to Newsmax.

"I don't think that the millionaires and billionaires associated with professional

sports ought to get a special tax break that's not available to the regular small businesses

and regular folks in my district and across America," the Florida Republican said.

"If there are players with concerns about racial inequality or the criminal justice

system, rather than taking a knee, how about they take a stand and actually advocate for

some proposals that they think might improve quality of life for people?" he added.

It's amazing what can happen when you unnecessarily call attention to yourself.

Few tears will be shed for the NFL this time around, nor should there be.

The league has clearly demonstrated that it's incapable of handling its own housecleaning,

and that's directly leading to them slaying their own golden goose.

Ratings have taken a hit, interest is on the decline, and fans and viewers are finding

elsewhere to go for the escapism that the NFL used to provide for them.

We'll have to wait and see if those same students we referenced above will be studying

how the league recovered from its massive misstep – or if that misstep led to its

ultimate downfall.

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét