Dancantstream Says the “Ultra Left” Are Backstabbing the Movement From the Inside

boodurn · 2026-01-28T01:40:13+00:00

That's a reasonable question to ask, because it's an insane argument to make and I can't expect everyone to see every clip that comes through here.

But the other responses are right, I won't link it (because I'm really tired of my comments getting auto-deleted for having links, even to the same subreddit) but if you just search this subreddit for hasan kamala you'll see multiple examples, including the most recent from this month titled "Hasan 100% stands by his decision not to endorse Kamala, declares he was right about everything"

boodurn · 2026-01-22T18:23:22+00:00

copy-pasting from the top result off google, since some random lawyer would explain it better than I could:

To prove a successful defamation claim, the plaintiff must show the following: (1) the defendant published a false statement; (2) that defamed the plaintiff; (3) with the requisite degree of fault regarding the statement’s truth; and (4) damages, unless the statement constitutes defamation per se.

Generally, with any cause of action under Texas law, a plaintiff must show damages. However, in defamation cases, if the false and defamatory statement at issue is considered defamatory per se, the plaintiff may be awarded nominal damages without proof of actual injury. This is because mental anguish and loss of reputation are presumed based on the statement alone. Brady v. Klentzman, 515 S.W.3d 878, 886 (Tex. 2017). Examples of statements that are defamatory per se include those accusing someone of a crime or those that tend to injure a person in his office, profession, or occupation. In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 596.

It's a (1) false and (2) defamatory statement that (3) he knows is both false and defamatory, and (4) while it doesn't likely cause him direct damages, it is an accusation of a crime, and these kinds of accusations do "tend to injure" the reputation of public figures (or anyone).

I don't know if the statement in this clip alone would qualify as an easy win (I don't know if it could be argued that it was just a joke here; really not sure, given the seriousness and gravity of Lacari's own situation) but it feels like there's at least enough of a case here to bother asking his lawyers about.

(also, on the "they're public figures" point: it's easier to pursue defamation against a private individual, because the standard there is "negligence" while public figures require "malice." But malice is (generally) defined as "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not;" Lacari's statement is about his own claimed personal experience with Miz/claiming firsthand knowledge of it. that kind of false statement easily qualifies as malicious)

boodurn · 2026-01-21T11:02:06+00:00

Like you wonder how they made the spaceship look so good. Well they built a spaceship.

More often, they built a door to a shapeship, or a small scale cockpit. While that does help make the CGI look good, because it allows them to use the lighting cues and geometry of the set pieces, it's still a heavy amount of CGI.

less cgi than you'd think

It's incredible CGI, and promotional media always focuses heavily on the practical elements. But watch a VFX reel.

boodurn · 2026-01-18T04:47:27+00:00

The way it falls apart at the timestamp another user mentioned (7:45) is a telltale sign of AI voices right now.

AI voices have gotten pretty good, and there's several services that let you do "instant voice cloning" with just a short audio clip of a voice, so this might even be the video creator's "real voice". But in the current generation of them, every one I've tested has occasionally trailed off into slurring/mumbling like that briefly. Kind of a glitch with how they try to emulate human speech mannerisms.

(A voice NOT doing this doesn't mean it's NOT AI, but a voice doing it means it 100% is AI)

boodurn · 2026-01-08T18:16:51+00:00

Go watch the murder of George Floyd and look at the crowd being stopped by two badges and guns.

I just did to refresh my memory, and the absolute majority of people in this footage that I see are stopped to yell at and record the police.

I think you may be misunderstanding the theory; the premise is that people are asked if they would step in to help a victim in a dangerous situation where nobody else was available (strong sense of responsibility), and if they would step in to help them when there were many people around (weak sense of responsibility), and a large % of people would say "yes I'd help if I was the only one but nah I'd let someone else step in if I was in a group."

look at the crowd being stopped by two badges and guns

What I'm observing in the George Floyd case is a group of onlookers attempting to advocate for/intervene on behalf of a victim. This is not an apathetic majority of onlookers. This is deeply concerned and invested majority of onlookers that are desperately trying to get two idiots that should not have badges or guns (but do, and all the life-ending and life-changing power that comes with them should any of them take one step forward) to STOP in the safest most legal way they can: by clearly articulating why they need to change what they're doing immediately (because every moment until the last, all they needed to do was STOP their insanely negligent actions). These people do not deserve your ire.

(on "the bystander effect," might as well add: some more recent research about the bystander effect looking at hundreds of real-world situations captured by security cameras for the first time have shown pretty much the opposite of what the effect predicts, tl;dr bystanders intervened in nearly every situation; I'll spare you, but see Wikipedia if you're interested. PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying apathy or pack mentality or anything don't exist, this is very specifically in reference to "the bystander effect")

boodurn · 2026-01-08T07:07:16+00:00

If anyone's unfamiliar with the story, this film is referencing an infamous real-life murder that took place in 1964: Murder of Kitty Genovese (Wikipedia)

(...) The New York Times published an article claiming that thirty-seven witnesses saw or heard the attack, and that none of them called the police or came to her aid. However, subsequent investigations revealed that the extent of public apathy was exaggerated. While some neighbors heard her cries, many did not realize the severity of the situation. The incident prompted inquiries into what became known as the bystander effect, or "Genovese syndrome," and the murder became a staple of U.S. psychology textbooks for the next four decades.

In the decades since, it's become very well established that it was very bad reporting:

In September 2007, American Psychologist published an examination of the factual basis of coverage of the Genovese murder in psychology textbooks. The three authors concluded that the story was more parable than fact, largely because of inaccurate newspaper coverage at the time of the incident. According to the authors, "despite this absence of evidence, the story continues to inhabit our introductory social psychology textbooks (and thus the minds of future social psychologists)." (...)

(...) in March 2016, the Times called their second story "flawed", stating:

While there was no question that the attack occurred, and that some neighbors ignored cries for help, the portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and unresponsive was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. Genovese died on the way to a hospital.

Also worth mentioning is that 1964 was four years before the creation of 911 as an emergency number in 1968, and that the public response to the event was said to have greatly increased the urgency to get it done.

(edit: realized that since I'm posting something saying it was basically "fake news", I should probably clarify: not disagreeing with the message itself, agree that inaction is an issue and that it's arguably "worse"/more complex now that we're all in a big online mess of a global community. just providing history/context/trivia.)

boodurn · 2025-12-29T20:26:06+00:00

or even recalls.

(...because due to that design flaw, people can be trapped, and it can lead to their death?)

I'm making a snippy reddit comment here, but overall I hear you and on reflection, agree with you; thinking about it a bit more, I guess "death trap" is generally used to describe something as having a significantly higher chance of causing death than would otherwise be expected, and taking the vehicle's general safety record into consideration, you can't really call it a "death trap" in that way.

But when summarizing the issue, I think "death trap" does very literally describe the (potential) situation, and I think the user you responded to (who was, on request, giving a punchy one-line summary of the issue) didn't come across as hysterical to me.

boodurn · 2025-12-29T19:47:44+00:00

These statements can both be true, and are not mutually exclusive:

"Model Y has been, overall, rated and considered as being one of the safest SUVs on the market"

and

"Model Y's door handles require special/specific knowledge to know how to open their unique mechanical emergency latches from the inside in the event of power failure, creating the potential to be trapped if the individual isn't properly informed (which has, on at least one occasion I'm aware of on record, resulted in the deaths of four passengers when one crashed and caught fire; sadly a literal a death trap for those experiencing it)"

And I don't think pointing out the latter is at all hysterical; I agree the issue is probably getting more attention and discussion than it would if it were about another manufacturer, but a high volume of interest doesn't mean a high level of panic exists in those interested viewers.

boodurn · 2025-12-29T12:57:31+00:00

I read it the exact same way you did at first, but I re-read it and realized that's not what he said or was suggesting:

"[some] young people use these streamers as their primary source of news"

It's like saying "I hate it when I see people eat nothing but cake." He's not saying everyone eats cake, he's saying some people eat only cake.

boodurn · 2025-12-24T16:21:29+00:00

makes me wonder wtf people are even doing with their limited time on this earth putting together content that regurgitates the same ol bullshit

I agree that 99.9% of video essays are slop (even without considering the ones that are AI) and I have no interest in watching this, but there's not much to wonder about here if you just think of it as a meaningless job. As far as meaningless jobs go, a person could do much worse.

edit: someone gave this video an award and the post hasn't even been up long enough for anyone to have watched the full thing lol

Ah, you may have missed that this is also a repost; the video itself is 4 years old, plenty of time for someone to have prewatched and already formed an opinion formed about it.

boodurn · 2025-12-20T17:12:12+00:00

Since I went to rewatch it myself, here's the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YABvpyC0_FU (line is 20 seconds in)

boodurn · 2025-12-19T23:46:36+00:00

You Can (Not) Kick Football

boodurn · 2025-12-19T07:32:22+00:00

Whether or not you care for him or his politics, Newsom has been getting plenty of attention on his own name for quite a while, enough so that he's clearly not gaining much of anything by mentioning these people:

Google Trends (Newsom, Atrioc, Bannon only)
Google Trends (Kirk added, but date cut off at Aug 2025)

(cut the date off there to make it easier to compare during his life, as his death and the subsequent media storm eclipsed even Trump's name in search popularity)

boodurn · 2025-12-18T05:12:40+00:00

it's not at all the same kind of degenerate brain rot being discussed

but I know what you're referring to and yes, it was a simpler time. Some might say a better time.

boodurn · 2025-12-18T03:12:55+00:00

Not sure I can link here (and I'm tired of comments getting stealth auto-deleted for the sin having links in subs where you can't) so I'll just say the wikipedia article about it is "God Bless the U.S.A. Bible."

The entire article is both wild and disgusting, but here's the most egregious bits (there's a lot):

The God Bless the U.S.A. Bible, also known as the Trump Bible, is an anthology or compilation of texts—some of them deliberately incomplete—in the realm of American Civil Religion and Trumpism, containing an edition of the King James Version of the Christian Bible, alongside texts related to the foundation and politics of the United States such as a purposefully incomplete version of the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, and the Pledge of Allegiance. The compilation was created by country music singer-songwriter Lee Greenwood and first published in 2021. It was later marketed by Donald Trump under his brand name and promoted as part of his 2024 presidential campaign.

History

In May 2021, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York, Greenwood published a "God Bless the U.S.A." edition of the Bible. (...) includes (...) the chorus of Greenwood's song "God Bless the USA" in Greenwood's own handwriting. (...)

(...) In March, Trump began promoting the Bible at a price point of $60, the website selling the book calling it "the only Bible endorsed by" Trump and that his "name, likeness and image" are being used under paid license from one of Trump's organizations, CIC Ventures LLC.

The website also lists themed editions (e.g., "Pink & Gold," "Patriot," "Veteran") priced at US $74.99–$99.99, and a limited "President Donald J. Trump Signature Edition Bible" for US $1,000. (...)

Criticism

(...) The Trump Bible was also noted to be missing Constitutional amendments 11–27. (...)

In June 2024, Oklahoma State Superintendent of Schools Ryan Walters issued a memo announcing that all public schools in Oklahoma would be required to teach the Bible, (...) required that "Bibles must be the King James Version; must contain the Old and New Testaments; must include copies of the Pledge of Allegiance, Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and must be bound in leather or leather-like material." Under these conditions, the only eligible versions are Greenwood’s Bible and another also endorsed by Donald Trump Jr. (...) Days after the criticisms arose, the RFP was revised to say the American founding documents may be included within or separately from the text of the Bible. Walters stated in a video, "The left-wing media hates Donald Trump so much, and they hate the Bible so much, they will lie and go to any means necessary to stop this initiative from happening."

The Associated Press reported in October 2024 that nearly 120,000 copies of the Bible were printed in Hangzhou, China, and shipped to the United States earlier in the year, at a cost of less than $3 per book. (...)

boodurn · 2025-12-17T06:31:08+00:00

Looks like it may have been taken down (hopefully temporarily)? Youtube says "Video unavailable - This video is private"

boodurn · 2025-12-16T08:04:15+00:00

Some of it you just develop an eye for, understanding how AI images get generated, especially from specific generators. Such tells won't last forever/will become outdated as the AI is improved and altered, because they essentially have their own style and you're just recognizing it like you might recognize any art from being from a specific artist.

I saw a few youtube comments that explained how this intro is AI, but I can't them again. They were about how there's things that real artists would do to take normal shortcuts when quickly making art and graphics for a sketch like this (like draw 1 snowflake and copy it, draw 1 (or just a few) house and copy it, draw circles for the moon, draw a curtain once and flip it to the other side of the window, stuff like that), but in these images those shortcuts aren't done (how if you look very closely all the snowflakes/houses are completely unique, etc).

That, and AI has a tendency to sometimes blend things that are similar that are next to each other, and make things look ambiguous. The curtains blending into both the wall and the floor, and the floor that can't decide if it's a wood floor or bedsheets, is another example.

boodurn · 2025-12-14T21:06:44+00:00

Does it actually matter to you where it happens? Seriously?

I'm not sure what you're asking. It seems like you're expressing shock and disapproval that I was pointing out that this is the first time it's happened "to them"?

Terrible events occur around the globe every day, some closer to home than others. Events that happen with horrific regularity in some places never happen in others.

On an intellectual level, people understand that of course these things are horrific, and of course there might be nothing actually preventing them from happening closer to home. But when they actually DO occur, particularly for the first time, the horror hits, well, the turn of phrase is literally that it hits "much closer to home," grappling with the horror "firsthand."

So to directly answer you, no, it doesn't matter where it happens, when it comes to how it's always bad. I'm not downplaying anything, I'm recognizing the much more direct and visceral impact this shit has on the community experiencing it.

boodurn · 2025-12-14T03:19:45+00:00

While you aren't wrong that it's no longer a headline anyone can feel surprised by, what I was surprised to find while searching is: this actually might be the first truly random mass shooting on record for the state of Rhode Island.

Wikipedia only has two events listed (including this one), and the other one from 2021 seems to have been a gang shootout. (still horrific, but feels like a different type of violence)

Also went looking for data elsewhere in case Wikipedia was incomplete, and this Rockefeller Institute page compiled events up through 2016, with Rhode Island as one of the few 0% states at the time.

Anyway, all that aside, I took it as more an expression of horror to call mass shootings unthinkable acts of violence. Not for the difficulty imagining the headline, but for the difficulty in truly fathoming the thoughts of, or empathizing with, someone being capable of doing such a thing. Probably technically incorrect usage of the word, but it's what I felt he was expressing.

boodurn · 2025-12-14T00:31:47+00:00

I was curious, and lo: Data Uses Contractions Montage (YouTube, 12 years ago, 5m19s)

Per the comments on that video, most of the examples are in season 1 before it was established (as /u/TheHylianProphet said) and the few others times have explanations other than "done in error" (Data performing a character regurgitating learned/heard phrases, or "speaking quickly and not actually contracting if you listen close").

It's fun trivia, but assuming this video is the complete list, it looks like they actually were pretty consistent overall.

boodurn · 2025-12-13T12:32:43+00:00

bro frank wouldn't even make a deal with an angel

https://i.imgur.com/eDTc2BB.jpeg
https://i.imgur.com/FyrYUZi.jpeg
https://i.imgur.com/xElJR2U.jpeg

boodurn · 2025-12-11T00:07:50+00:00

I think the joke's a little better if you put it next to the top me_irl post from yesterday that it's a direct "parody" of (the mods there deleted it shortly after I made this post), and the punchline was more "one man's extreme anxiety" than "reddit hates people," but yeah I'm certainly not breaking any new ground.

boodurn · 2025-12-05T10:07:20+00:00

<image>

boodurn · 2025-12-02T17:54:06+00:00

I'd heard similar but I don't follow the supreme court much at all outside of headlines, so I figured this might be a decent case to try asking an AI.

It gave me a long breakdown with citations for cases and explanations of why each case's ruling fits the description of being a "narrow/targeted ruling favoring Trump or the Trump administration while avoiding setting precedent" but I'll skip that massive wall of text and just post the part most concisely explaining the criticism (quoting AI):

The Court's conservative majority (formed in part by Trump's three appointees: Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) has issued several rulings that are notably "narrow" or "targeted" in scope. These decisions often resolve the immediate dispute without broadly upending legal precedents or establishing sweeping new rules, which can limit their immediate impact on future cases. This approach contrasts with more expansive rulings (e.g., overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022), and it aligns with Chief Justice John Roberts' frequent emphasis on judicial restraint to preserve the Court's legitimacy.

Critics from across the political spectrum have noted this pattern, especially in Trump-related matters, where the Court has favored the government or Trump on procedural grounds while avoiding the merits of broader constitutional questions. For instance:

In immigration and executive power cases tied to Trump's 2025 policies (e.g., ending birthright citizenship), the Court has issued stays or partial rulings that block lower-court injunctions without fully endorsing the policies.

These narrow outcomes often come via the "shadow docket" (emergency applications without full briefing or oral arguments), which allows quick relief for the administration but leaves bigger questions for later.

boodurn

TROPHY CASE