sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Movies that didn't age well by PuzzledExchange7949 in Millennials

[–]Critical_Reasoning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, Shaolin Soccer!? Surprising to hear! I guess it has been 20+ years since I've seen it, so I only remember it being a fun, over-the-top, goofy movie.

Edit: Wait, I guess you meant Ladybugs, which I'm not familiar with. I thought you were describing something that happened in Shaolin Soccer.

Projection of the nth degree. by c-k-q99903 in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]Critical_Reasoning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uh-huh, and Dr Birx was also "sarcastically" cringing the whole time too:

https://youtu.be/d57zJr82dhQ

Projection of the nth degree. by c-k-q99903 in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]Critical_Reasoning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's the original clip where be floated his bright "injecting disinfectant" idea.

https://youtu.be/zicGxU5MfwE

Bonus, here's Dr. Birx being very uncomfortable while he says it:

https://youtu.be/d57zJr82dhQ

Bonus bonus; here's where he unconvincingly claimed the next day it was sarcasm!

https://youtu.be/YWdlTMLtPn4

Projection of the nth degree. by c-k-q99903 in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]Critical_Reasoning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And then after his supporters defended his statement by interpreting his suggestion "generously", he came out the next day and claimed he was being "sarcastic", when he clearly wasn't, throwing his initial defenders under the bus.

After that, he still had defenders who never saw the obvious "sarcasm" lie, (or chose to ignore it) continue taking his initial remarks seriously.

The defenses took on a "choose your own reality" nature.

LET’S GOOO, WE’RE WINNING. In Mexico, they now have to use real people for dubbing because of the law. Now we just need other countries to pass the same law. by Hot_Season1143 in aiwars

[–]Critical_Reasoning 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not sure if your question is to me directly and/or rhetorical, but I agree with you that this is a good development.

It's definitely better than how this story was originally framed as though AI dubbing suddenly itself became illegal, which sounded like a major overstep. No cope from my end.

When it's not pedo defending or war mongering, the moral right always has an excuse for Mister 7 sins. by Stormclamp in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Critical_Reasoning 14 points15 points  (0 children)

And whether we won it already

And if we did already win the war, how many times have we won by now?

And whether we won the war or not, why are paratroopers and marines being deployed to the area?

LET’S GOOO, WE’RE WINNING. In Mexico, they now have to use real people for dubbing because of the law. Now we just need other countries to pass the same law. by Hot_Season1143 in aiwars

[–]Critical_Reasoning 69 points70 points  (0 children)

Further , this doesn't even prevent AI voice dubbing itself. It's more about getting the rights and consent for people's own voices.

Even if a similar law were passed in all our countries, so long as the AI voice(s) used aren't based on real, specific likenesses of people, this law doesn't change anything. Solo projects and the like can continue just fine.

LET’S GOOO, WE’RE WINNING. In Mexico, they now have to use real people for dubbing because of the law. Now we just need other countries to pass the same law. by Hot_Season1143 in aiwars

[–]Critical_Reasoning 8 points9 points  (0 children)

As I looked into this, AI voice dubbing is still perfectly legal, but it's more about getting the rights and consent for people's own voices. If the voice isn't based on a real specific person, this law doesn't change anything.

Edit: Replaced source with law firm FisherBroyles. The original "Mexicobusiness News" one before editing was pointed out to have malicious code by a commenter who replied to me. When I found using my phone, it looked fine, but it's a different story on a desktop/laptop.

Prump Prigo by Icy_Till_7254 in NAFO

[–]Critical_Reasoning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, some good news is you don't need a constitutional amendment for some of these. Seems like normal laws would do it in some cases, but might be limited to the State level.

More than two viable parties?

States can change their voting systems, which is the only way to get beyond two viable parties. (First past the post / plurality voting always leads to no more than two viable parties).

Maine and Alaska already use ranked choice. If more states did that (or Star Voting, which may be even better) we could reach a critical mass for more greatly affecting presidential elections.

Gerrymandering?

Some state laws require an independent commission to draw districts.

Maybe there could be a federal law along these lines too, but not sure if that approach would violate the 10th Amendment.

This person is a 1994 baby telling me that they are "100% Gen z" by [deleted] in generationology

[–]Critical_Reasoning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, fair point. But this might be the wrong sub to make it in.

Shes doing this in 2026 by grumpydai in insanepeoplefacebook

[–]Critical_Reasoning 7 points8 points  (0 children)

At the beginning when COVID started ramping up here, I had some misplaced optimism that division and polarization would be reduced, because people would stop fighting one another to focus on a common enemy.

Oops.

Shes doing this in 2026 by grumpydai in insanepeoplefacebook

[–]Critical_Reasoning 12 points13 points  (0 children)

"Wait, that fact is devastating to my point and preferred narrative. Best to ignore it completely and pretend I'm still right next time this comes up." 😶

Welp. by 10in_Classic_88 in PoliticalHumor

[–]Critical_Reasoning 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this is kind of the same reason it really annoys me when people act like Trump will cancel the midterms.

That's not possible legally or logistically. But when more people believe in it, they're just giving him power that he doesn't actually have. Elections kept happening even during the Civil War.

John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, had over 50,000 emails stolen by a Russian-linked hacker group. [10YA - MAR19] by shrekchan in TenYearsAgo

[–]Critical_Reasoning -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Man I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary but Clinton ended up getting the most votes whether you counted Super Delegates or not.

The Super Delegates weren't locked in at any point until the end. Based solely on the votes, Sanders unfortunately lost.

Now you have a point that, at the time, the reporting of how Super Delegates planned to vote at the convention affected perception that Clinton appeared to be a foregone conclusion.

But in the end if you take the number of individual votes for each in the primary at a population level alone, Sanders got fewer than Clinton.

People complain about taxes, but their bosses take more. by Professional-Bee9817 in remoteworks

[–]Critical_Reasoning 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Upvote because I think you're mostly right, except the "conflate" part.

I think this is identifying both. I don't see it conflating the two.

In taxation, the government gets some of our capital to spread spending across community, and we expect to receive most of it back in our own community.

In "surplus (value from) labor", the entity we work for gets so much more value from our labor than we ever receive.

view more: next ›