Damn, hoss, didn't think I'd wake up and have to read someone normalizing police violence.
Like, they could just not, you know, go around creating the conditions for their own trauma.... that's a much more legit strategy. That's why folks aren't having this discussion about, say, "fire, EMS and even victims of violent crime".
I know that violence creates traumatic responses, I've been getting a lot out of therapy after being illegally pepper sprayed by DHS last year. Real fuckin' hard for me to feel super sad that those officers probably had big feelings about that violence themselves when they could just, like, not go around assaulting folks.
Good luck on your response to this kind of rhetoric- I agree with you totally.
For instance, when I read stuff such as "I have seen an America that fought to remove the cancer of slavery"... it really makes me wonder with what eyes that "fact" has been seen.
In the last couple of weeks I've been reading a lot of WEB DuBois, who lays out pretty good first-hand material histories on the facts here. Or, for instance, yesterday I read a Frederick Douglas speech about John Brown.
When I read these sources, I don't think that the folks (other than the black folks fighting to free themselves) generally were fighting "to remove the cancer of slavery"... I see folks in power who, as a last resort accepted black folks into their lines.
If you read first person accounts of these things, if you read the literal words that folks were writing at the time, it's very easy to see that the obvious tactical and strategic reasons were almost overpowered by the blatent and deep racism of the folks in power.
It's easy to watch folks who will take the word of their 6th grade "history" teacher over reading, like, 2 books of first-hand sources and trace out the litany of other blatantly false understandings of the world on about every topic.
White supremacy culture is disgustingly sticky and oozes all through out folks' brains so much so that they can't even register the water in which they swim as existing. It's even not difficult to see past it if you just, like, read folks and listen when you feel uncomfortable, but damn, folks will just accept whatever BS propaganda they were given in grade school and wonder how come all these folks out in the world dismiss their idiotic positions.
Pretty sure this goes against guidelines here. Responding to someone else's response to quote and then talk about me is straight trash, especially embedding so many labels/ pejoratives aimed at me.
I guess Robert Gould Shaw grudgingly accepted everyone I guess.
I guess elected politicians like Thaddeus Stevens grudgingly accepted everyone and didn't run on a policy of anti-slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens
I didn't write anything ignorant. Your personal feelings and interpretation are yours to make, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant for having the mainstream historical interpretation, or believing the United States is a redeemable nation.
I guess HN is cool with personal characters attacks like this though because I flagged them for review and they were left up. Good to know what you guys consider meeting your guidelines.
First of all, I don't know you personally. What I wrote about were historical facts.
I understand that often white-bodied folks become very triggered when folks point out that they might have a point of view informed by white supremecy culture. I have no idea what kind of body you have, but you are clearly very upset. I don't say that as a "gotcha, hah triggered ya", I say that as a person who has been often and deeply upset by this culture, and who can recognize similar patterns of hurt and harm in other folks writing. So while I have no actual idea about you or your actual state of mind or body, you read to me like a person who is very upset for reasons that have very little to do with postings on a message board.
On one hand, it's easy for me to say:
a - if you don't like being called out, don't call folks out. If you want to be hypercritical of folks, as you were doing up thread, you're gonna need a thicker skin
b - I believe that when you say "mainstream interpretation" you can pretty easily interpret that as "white", which is what I mean when I write that you specifically are operating from a position of white supremacy. You might not have noticed that in response to references to Frederick Douglass and WEB DuBois you counterpoised a couple of white "leaders", but I certainly did.
Secondly, even if I didn't just do what you're doing to other folks on this board and dismiss your writings out of hand as both based in whatever deep traumas you have around whiteness and general ignorance of the world, your political position is still quite bad.
Your position is what a lot of folks describe as "Blue MAGA", centered on the idea that the US used to be pretty dang good (if flawed) and that we need to work back towards that greatness.
To hold that position you need to ignore a whole lot of real and obvious history, and the way folks in the US have done that is to ignore the actual writings and words of non-white folks.
I am certain that you don't experience that ignorance you are maintaining as a process of de-humanizing those other people (at least until someone points that out, which can be very activating to read).
I don't expect you to be rational about these things, because being made to feel white is very traumatic to folks in white bodies.
I don't expect you to have the capacity to deconstruct your thoughts around race, either.
But if you ever are able to do that work, consider that what I'm describing is a very specific dismissal that you're doing, of a very specific historical selectiveness, and all you have to do to not do that is to read and listen.
That's not a personal attack. This isn't about your personal "character"; that's just the world, and your ignorant and (frankly) dehumanizing political position.
I'm sorry that it feels upsetting and personal to you.
Getting to a position where you can do that work of examining these things may be impossible, and you might find that it makes all the other white-bodied folks around seem quite menacing, but it's certainly work that will liberate you from the need to defend the indefensible.
Sure I'm a total mess. If you read my history I was an exec who fell out and is still rebuilding after being away from the world for a minute (and had my eyes opened/views change on race in America during that process and learning others lived experience though not even close to understanding what that lived experience was/is like).
You didn't call me out you piled on responding to someone else while using low effort/charicture making personal attacks. That's what I took issue with.
I replied to your statement:
" I don't think that the folks (other than the black folks fighting to free themselves) generally were fighting "to remove the cancer of slavery"."
With an example of a white politician who was elected by other white folks fighting "to remove the cancer of slavery" and who was then able to use his political power to sideline United States President Andrew Johnson who was trying to restore the seceded states without guarantees for freedmen, so not some obscure/irrelevant out of power white guy but someone who thwarted the US President's evil attempts. My example specifically countered what you said. Responding to what you say and giving factual examples isn't white centric. It wouldn't make sense to use non-white examples in that response.
I never said we need to work back towards greatness. I said the USA is redeemable and the best way to progress compared to the other options, and gave examples of improvement. I pointed out 'who we are' created children that didn't care about marrying outside race to awful racist parents and Michelle Obama is correct. This historically 'who we are' was directed at pre-Trump America current era America, not our entire history, with the historical reference to show improvement is possible. It's a common way to phrase it (as shown by Michelle Obama's usage), but I think threw the conversation off into something larger than the initial discussion (we need to fight against what Trump and his supporters are doing, and not normalize that they get to define 'who we are'). I'm not trying to whitewash history, I was continuing the original discussion about the Voice of America win and that we need to be positive and build on what wins we can and ham-fistedly referenced the Civil War as showing societal push to improve, and working towards something better.
You are the one who routinely has dehumanized me in this discussion, to the point of talking about me but not too me and labeling me with names/pejoratives and deciding my positions, and defining my motivations.
But you are right, I'm a mess, and I give up. Let Trump America be America now and forever I guess. You all win in your empowering the 40% and getting me as a member of the 60% out of the way.
There's a bit of writing in that direction if you're curious. I like Benjamin quite a but and have gotten a lot out of his thinking. Here's the wiki-level entry to it:
Unfortuantely, while I do come here for these kinds of discussions, it's moistly because I've excised the sociopathic and nationalistic folks from much of my medua and it's much easier to find those values among wanna-be venture capitalists.
I "value" their opinions insofar as they have an outsized influence on our world:
I feel like if I want to stay tapped into the progress folks are making on building the Torment Nexus, this website is where I will find folks breathlessly cheering it on.
As a person who organized and participated in the ultimately useless protests against the Iraq war, I think that you're correct- we had a couple of months to watch the BushII folks lie their way into getting wide support for the war.
As far as I can tell, these current assholes don't really care what the folks in the US think about their actions, so they don't spend time making cases- they just go do whatever dumb shit they want to do. Hell, I suspect that even they don't have a firm idea of what they are doing.
I don't think the protests were useless even if they didn't stop the war. It allowed the anti war opinion to solidify, particularly when there were no WMDs found (surprise).
Tony Blair is now widely reviled in the UK, and you can hardly find anyone who will admit to have supported the war.
Fair enough. It was certainly a learning point for me, personally. And it was probably an on-ramp into understanding imperial and neo-liberal politics that set a lot of folks of my generation into Occupy.
At the same time, I wish that protesting felt effective; the stated goals weren't achieved, and that is a fact. I've never been satisfied with being "right" about these horrors, even if I've been "right" a lot in my life.
And protesting is way more fun and less risky than the direct actions that seem to be for more effective in having measurable effects on efforts around ICE.
Doubly important when we're discussing explicit US propaganda efforts, I'd think, which certainly have cast "capitalism" and "communism" as weird and float-y signifiers.
Well, I'll grant you that the folks defending them are certainly making statements worth judging harshly.
I am not sure if I buy the idea that "We" elected them.
I'd be really stoked to know what I personally could have done (or encouraged my cadre / comrades to have done) to prevent this outcome, because I don't recall even being given a choice about who I thought should run against the current regime and I live in a state where I am a political minority (a left anarchist organizing against specific local actions like ICE "enforcement" and flock camera usage, among far less contested actions).
This is an actual question, because I am curious and have read your comments enough to recognize your username in the pile of folks writing thoughtful-ish comments:
is it the case that you identify enough with this government to count yourself among the (presumably judgement-worthy) "we" or is it the case that you count everyone counted by the US government as a citizen as "we"? Or would you state it in some other way? What do you mean when you write "we" in this case?
When I say "we" I mean about 1/3 of us who voted for this, and about 1/3 who decided that either way was good for them. That includes a bunch of people who are diametrically opposed but for whom the main alternative wasn't quite good enough.
That's roughly two-thirds of us. Those of us who took even the trivial effort to oppose this are a distinct minority.
I don't think there's any that minority could have done differently. We are merely complicit in the suicide pact that is the Constitution, whereby we go with the majority and hope the majority would let us try again in a few years. That's an increasingly dubious proposition, and now we have to decide if this social contract hasn't already been broken.
You did have a choice as the democrats held primaries that year and Biden won the primaries. Unfortunately he withdrew afterwards and there was a scramble to find a replacement, but you don’t get to rewrite history that the primaries didn’t occur.
If you didn’t vote for Harris then you were fine with Trump as a possibility. Own your decision.
How about this: if you voted, you signed up in a system that says you're okay with the outcome of the situation.
How is that not true? "I did what I could"... sure. So did I.
But I wouldn't have been okay with either outcome, so I didn't sign up saying that after an election we'd all just be like "whelp, good game guess I should go back to brunch".
So here I am, having to go organize against ICE because of the shitty political system that you reify. Thanks, asshole. If you voted, then you're okay with the outcome- that's what it means to vote.
I work with a lot of audio in a professional capacity. You're correct if you're saying that neither tech is universally "teh best".
And you're correct that wired phones have a lot of advantages.
Tack on that they don't have latency, though I've never really tried to track vocals on wireless cans. I have a pretty nice collection of what I consider to be quality mid-tier stuff for my studio (hd280, dt770, mdr7506, k240), and I think they mostly sound better and I can use them longer than I can use the various wireless stuff I use.
And the "real" UHF wireless audio I use professionally (well, to collect rather than listen to audio) is very reliable and good sounding but also, like, $1000/ch once it's cased and cabled and properly accessorized.
However, for almost all of my day to day listening I use either airpods or a some bluetooth'd 3M ear muffs. I even went back to airpods after going through both wired and other wireless solutions.
I don't enjoy having my in-ears ripped out along with my pocket. And universally the cord ends and the physical connector on my phone are the weak spots that have had me replace stuff- I haven't bought a phone in the 5 years since I got one that could charge wirelessly and never has phones plugged into it, and I don't intend to get another one any time soon (knock on wood that my case keeps the screen from breaking and needing me to repair it).
I have a bluetooth receiver with an analog out that I keep in my workbox, which I used for program music at a show tonight. It's nice to start my truck and my podcast just starts playing, too, without having to get out my phone and plug it in.
You're right that wired stuff is better for some things. I still find wireless stuff to be superior in a lot of situations.
> Tack on that they don't have latency, though I've never really tried to track vocals on wireless cans
The truth is that the OS usually hides the latency of wireless heapdhones, e.g. airpods, by delaying video to keep it in sync. The real latency is somewhere around 100-400ms if the RF environment is crowded. Even worse is that the latency isn't actually constant, but drifts all the time.
At many IT conferences organized by hackspaces, everything is done by volunteers, including broadcast and video/audio postproduction. And that is actually one of the most common issues: our volunteers use wireless headphones even if we ask them repeatedly not to.
We cut talks in postproduction primarily based on audio, e.g., when does the applause start/end, when does the speaker's introduction start/end, etc. Obviously, that doesn't work reliably if the audio latency is nondeterministic.
Even worse, as different venues have different audio setups, there are sometimes real audio/video sync issues that need to be fixed. But if our volunteers are using wireless headphones, they won't just set the wrong offset, but they end up trying to fix issues that don't even exist.
And then you get complaints from viewers that e.g. the livestream audio/video is out of sync, even though it's not. The issue turns out to be caused by the viewer's laptop and wireless headphones not supporting the latency compensation technique I explained earlier. And there's nothing we can do about that.
Wireless headphones tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and made it worse. In German, we'd call that "verschlimmbessern".
> The truth is that the OS usually hides the latency of wireless heapdhones, e.g. airpods, by delaying video to keep it in sync.
Right, but that only works when you control both. I love my Sony and Shure Bluetooth headphones and have 0 issues watching videos with them; they work great even on Linux.
But when people figure they're gonna use BT headsets for conferencing, it just turns into a shitshow of people waiting for the other to speak, then starting to speak at the same time.
I have an old Jabra headset for my video call needs, and it uses DECT. That thing has so little latency that I can use it to play FPS games without issues (I'm by no means a competitve player, so YMMV). At the same time, its range is huuuge. For the life of me, I cannot understand why nobody makes such headsets anymore: they've all switched to BT for some reason. The only models that seem to still use some form of low-latency transmission are some "gamer" models, but I've never tried one.
ugh the most annoying thing about the conversation clash latency is that the person causing the issue just thinks others are being weirdly rude.
wireless headphones externalize the cost of latency to other conference participants. if you think your airbuds are "perfectly fine" it's because you're not the one paying the cost.
> Wireless headphones tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and made it worse.
I think you are going to far here.
Do wireless headphones have problems? Sure. Did they fix some problems wired headphones had? Yes. Yes, they did.
Simply the ability of moving around without having to worry about the cable getting tangled or dragging the headphones or the phone is phenomenal. My wireless headphones are a lot more reliable than my previous wired ones. Somehow the cable and the connector was always the source of failures.
Do you not like wireless headphones? Don’t buy them. I will keep buying wireless headphones because they have clear benefits to me in my usage.
I find it insulting that you represent your preference as some universal truth.
Most of this thread is already exploring the consumer perspective, and as the previous poster said they couldn't talk about the professional perspective, I chose to only focus on the production/broadcast angle in my comment.
Tell me about the 3M ones? I've been considering the AM/BT with AA batteries but they seem sliightly derpy, and I've been happy with the SteelSeries Arctic Nova w/swappable batteries and 2.4ghz for my office work.
AA batteries b/c then it'll "last forever", 3M b/c it's basically passive noise cancellation, BlueTooth so it'll connect to phones (hopefully without that digital static that I'll hear with some BT devices). The AM/FM portion is an anti-feature, but mandatory to get access to AA power.
I made my own, but they sucked balls. I have some Plantronic cans which have ~10db nrr, but they are falling apart now, and I'm looking for alternatives with decent NRR
Well, I have had them for about 2 years and would buy them again.
To be clear, these are for noise protection and are heavy. They are big enough that I have another pair of muffs for shooting rifles and some ($$) molded westone earplugs for working on loud stages.
I mostly use the 3m when I am running a chainsaw or driving vehicles with the windows down (I find that too damn loud for my tastes). For a while I'd track drums with them over my shure se215, but I've started playing quieter and have found that something like an HD280 cuts stuff down enough to track drums while feeling more comfortable.
On one hand, they are kind of expensive, bulky, and the mic isn't great. Also their "ambient sound" is not anywhere near as loud or controllable as the muffs I use for shooting. On the other hand, they pair well, sound okay, have a lot of noise reduction, and they seem pretty rugged. They run on AAs and Battery life is pretty good, too.
You might find it useful to distinguish between right and left libertarians.
All my anarchist (left libertarian) friends are pretty consistently opposed to state and corporate surveillance. There is plenty of theory in a canon of literature that goes back to the mid 19th century, even as there are many subgroups and spurs off that general line of thought all with their own sets of (usually somewhat) consistent lines.
If you want something short and brutal, I am a fan of "Desert" by anonymous, but "A Utopia of Rules" by David Graeber is not a bad thing to read and probably closer to a popular line. Or the CIA-Coded Yale academic James Scott has a lot to say, "Two Cheers for Anarchism" and "Seeing Like a State" both seem to have influenced a lot of people.
Historically "right libertarians" (the US Libertarian political party, for instance) have been, uh, "less consistent" in their thinking, so you might have a hard time finding anything that looks like a "philosophy" in that branch of "thought". Plenty of goofy-ass ideas, but little consistency except a strange ability to begrudgingly conform to GOP politics at the end of the day.
I mean -also- weird to claim that the CCP invented scoring folks, but even if they did, it'd be hella weird to think that somehow they helped a US local power company implement it...
Look, I get that "CCP Bad". It's just always wild to see folks try and make that case when something has literally nothing to do with it, especially while there are plenty of pretty horrific and material mechanisms in play without pretending that the big-O Other is to blame.
Like, they could just not, you know, go around creating the conditions for their own trauma.... that's a much more legit strategy. That's why folks aren't having this discussion about, say, "fire, EMS and even victims of violent crime".
I know that violence creates traumatic responses, I've been getting a lot out of therapy after being illegally pepper sprayed by DHS last year. Real fuckin' hard for me to feel super sad that those officers probably had big feelings about that violence themselves when they could just, like, not go around assaulting folks.
reply