The title “TikToker who debunked Jason Aldean’s ‘Try That in a Small Town’ video…” is a little silly and confusing but the TikToker, Destinee, was pointing out how racist the music video is and also debunked Jason Aldean’s claim that all the music video footage is exclusively real American protests.
She debunked that "“there isn’t a single video clip that isn’t real news footage,” as Aldean said in defense of the music video. She showed that some of the footage was from a an event in Canada, and a protest in Ukraine, as well as some stock footage. The article explains more.
there are a bunch of black people in this reaction video saying it isn’t racist. watch the reaction video then come back and let me know what you think about the reaction video.
Edit: I like how people are downvoting me. I wonder how many of them are white. Watch the reaction video, then come back and let me know you actually watched the reaction video all the way through. Also let me know if you are black or white. What I’m trying to figure out is what percentage of people that are pissed are they white or black. The more knowledge we have the better off we are.
When I first started hearing about this song, and they were people feeling was racist, I thought maybe I should start asking is it racist or not?. I am a middle-aged white guy, so I’m probably not real well qualified to determine what it is or is not racist towards Black people. I can make an assumption of how people, Black people, might view it. But I’ve never walked in the shoes of a black man or a black woman.
I’ve never been pregnant and I’m not a female so there’s no way I can know what it is like to be pregnant. Nor can I figure out what it is like for the emotional stresses of what a female goes through. I can make an assumption or a guess that a certain situation might be stressful or that a certain certain situation a female might not like, but I am not a female so I cannot know it for a fact. So I would have to go talk to a female.
I’m not a Marine so there is no real way for me to know what a Marine goes through.
So I thought the best way to figure out of what do Black people think about this video is effectively go online and look at YouTube videos of Black people responding to the video. That is why I am encouraging those who are down voting this to go watch that video and then come back and respond and tell me what do you think of that video. And also to state are you black or white. for example if I get a bunch of Black people come in here and tell me yes it’s racist as hell, well then obviously that’s where Black people are at and I need to listen to that.
That’s a terrible way to judge it. Part of the effect of systemic racism is that it obscures itself. Part of the tactics of white supremecy is to gaslight and deny. The people who chose to shoot this video at the site of a lynching and race massacre know that this video is racist as fuck, but they deny it and obscure it. It’s dog whistling and it’s not even that subtle.
I’m sure if it ask Kanye or Clarence they have no problems with the messaging in the video. Maybe it’s because they are tokens or maybe it’s because they don’t recognize the symbolism of lynching black people at a courthouse.
What do academics and social scientists say, students of history and anthropology?
The video says that in small town, the law will not protect you from extrajudicial murder if you burn a flag, which is a lawful, First Amendment protected activity. Any attempt to deny, excuse, or justify this messaging is yet another act of complete, unironic ignorance, or is intentional gaslighting.
I clicked on the link and literally none of the top comments are from black people, they’re from white people, so something is certainly wrong here and I don’t think it’s those downvoting you
What’s happening here is very typical with marginalized communities, pandering to White Supremacists to gain some semblance of respect. It isn’t the first time this has happened. Shall we take a walk back down memory lane to the time Malcolm X sat beside George Rockwell?
When I first started hearing about this song, and they were people feeling was racist, I thought maybe I should start asking is it racist or not?
If you read the article and watch the TikTok video a person of color is telling you that she considers it racist. It’s fine if some other PoCs disagree. But the discussion here started with the opinion of Ms Stark.
I lived in conservative california and that sounds about right. Only thing that kept us alive was that my spouse happens to be a vet and we’re asian so we get a pass. We lived there for a while until my spouse got a job after covid. They literally think that it’s a warzone out there. So much bullshit spread about the city. Of course the news just fans the flames.
This lady I knew never went to the fashion district in LA because she pretty much believed that her blond and blue eyed kids would be snatched off the streets by minorities. The ironic thing is that we lived off the I-15 which is a huge human trafficking corridor so the kidnapping would have more likely happened closer to where they live. Also phelan is full of meth heads but you know, that doesn’t matter.
The song is about sundown towns and that makes it racist AF.
It is not only okay to upset intolerant assholes, it is a service to society. Bigots literally get offended over other people’s existence. They are the ones causing the problem in the first place, and they should be made to feel unwelcome as they do to others.
There is no way for LGBTQ and minorities to live in certain communities in this country without being offensive to the white Christian Nationalist hivemind. Just the fact that they exist and want to live their lives and have their own culture is enough to upset these types.
Look up the tolerance paradox in case you somehow haven’t heard of it. We must not tolerate intolerance if we want to live in a nice society.
I'm really hoping we can do something about that coral reef we found that is resistant to heat and bleaching and learn from it or maybe even somehow use it to genetically help the other reefs
Jesus christ no. What we need to do is stop flying, stop driving cars, stop eating meat and fish and dumping waste in the ocean... We cannot bioengineering all the coral. Being open to new technology to save us, at some point just resembles waiting for Jesus to rapture you on doomsday.
Fixing our emissions problem absolutely is the most important part, but technology for ecology restoration is ALSO very important. There are things (quite possibly the survival of many species of coral) that are already gone or past the point of no return, that are necessary to fix or replace to prevent further collapse of ecosystems. And don’t downplay the effort and work done by biologists and ecologists to save individual species, it is difficult and often underappreciated.
Um...i don't know what i said made you think i was a fossil fuel person. I agree completely. But we are going to need to help the corals that have died off and are struggling even if we stop all fossil fuels today. That is what i was getting at. I guess cause of other assholes, i can see why you'd assume that im a "just out techno climate change", but I'm not.
It pays really well, all you need is your commercial driver’s license, you take a 3 month course that costs a couple grand and then it’s a cool 100k+ per year and usually if you can get a permanent position you get LOA
But yeah the reasons you listed are why it’s so high paying lol
It’s always struck me as one of the best jobs in construction (not too hard on the body), but also always seemed like something that you needed to have balls of steel for.
I could never do it. 20 story balconies are too high for me and I’ve got a solid building under me and 2 feet planted on something solid. Doesn’t help that so many movies have people falling of cranes
I think you just need to revise which senses you’re using to assess it. It may only look like a couple of inches… but give it a sniff, and you’d swear it’s a foot!
I tried to open the wired link and got a 404, then tried again and got a 504, then tried again and got a 503.
I then opened the lifehacker link, and it opened fine. The content of that link gives me the impression Ghostery may have had ties to ad companies. At the bottom of the article they link to Mashable as their source here:
Since the Wired article seems to be the only one I can't open, I guess it is unable to defend itself beyond the title of the article, which says that (1) Ghostery is now open source and (2) Ghostery has a new business model. Based on what I can see, it would appear to me as though Ghostery was actually owned/managed by Evidon. My interpretation of that would have to be that their OLD business model included selling information to advertisers. I tried to go to evidon.com but it was blocked by my intentional DNS poisoning (a sign that it is a scummy domain). After temporarily changing my DNS resolver to one of the servers hosted by
Which is clearly a business that is designed to help businesses monetize web services while staying just barely legal and maximize the amount of data a marketer can pull from people without getting in shit for not actually getting consent from them.
So, when you say
"It is not, and never has been, in league with ad companies."
Do you mean I have imagined all of the above? Because it sounds pretty shady to me that a company affiliated with Evidon and Crownpeak would be making a product line like the ones at Ghostery.
Sigh... now that I am home I am able to open the Wired article. The second link is to a vice.com article which says:
"Ghostery 6.0 is a from-the-ground-up re-imagining of how to design a privacy-enhancing browser extension so that its features are more easily accessible to a mainstream audience."
In other words, this is NOT their old version, and it says nothing about any previous versions, ownership, management, or financing of the product. The fourth link in the article is to another Wired article:
"Ghostery, another popular ad blocker, operates under a different model. As a user, you don't see ads and aren't tracked by pesky data trackers. The company, however, makes money by collecting anonymized data on what those trackers pick up. It repackages that data and resells it to publishers, websites, and other companies it says can use the information to help improve the speed, privacy, and performance of their sites."
Followed by a footnote that says:
"UPDATE 3:47 PM ET 03/02/16: This story has been updated to accurately reflect that Ghostery does not collect the same data that third-party trackers collect, but rather collects and sells data about the trackers themselves."
I have a hard time not seeing this as:
"Ghostery was getting a shitty reputation because people did not understand that they were selling information about stooges to other stooges. Their solution was to make a dramatic shift in their business model in hopes that they could win back privacy points."
When it comes to digital privacy, I am not big on second chances. If Meta says they are going to opensource some portion of their crap it doesn't win them any points with me and I won't be trusting them with any digital data. Whatever anyone else's opinion may be, there is plenty there to keep me from trusting Ghostery, opensource or not.
I'm also not a fan of Wikipedia [not a primary source] but even they have this:
@Xylight Firefox v2.0.20 in 2008 was the last "good" version. Since then it has been awesome bar, pocket, forced VPN ads, ftp support, PAC support, XUL bombing, and phone calls home. I use Librewolf, and while it is tolerable it is still tired to a garbage browser. :-(
I don’t know what “Firefox” you’re talking about. None of this is an issue at all (except the anonymous telemetry that you can disable easily). Firefox has actually surpassed Google in speed in its latest update. Let’s say, you were right, does that justify using that spyware chrome? I’m willing to compromise on things so I don’t support a monopoly. We have to get out of our comfort zone a bit if we really care.
In previous versions you could search your about:config on the "value" field, this is no longer possible. Searching for https:// and http:// would give you a list of numerous URLs, most of which are under Mozilla's own domains. Some might argue that things like updates are necessary to ensure a secure browser. Others might argue that they have run very outdated browsers without problems for years, and that combined with forced updates and the Maintenance Service, the log files generated produce a not-insignificant amount of information about users.
Suggesting using an decades old and known exploitable browser because “well I never got hacked” is like saying vaccines are unnecessary because “well I never got sick”
Hello! Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “New York Fire: Burning construction crane collapses into Manhattan skyscraper” (Similairity: ~36%).
ZZZzzzz… this action was performed semi-automatically by a bot (:
G’morning, Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “Whistleblower tells Congress the US is concealing ‘multi-decade’ program that captures UFOs” (Similairity: ~29%).
BLEEPERDY BLOOP this action was performed semi-automatically by a bot (:
I assume it was a joke in poor taste. A conservative would have said it was a deep state plant or that they had it coming for smoking weed or something.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.