Logic pro x alternatives reddit free
In the last part of the 20th century, the utterly drab and lackluster Three-Letter Networks were drab and lackluster in part because they were trying to avoid offending as large a portion of the population as possible.
But, with way more than 3 networks competing now, you can’t be drab and get anyone’s attention. Which means either you have content that’s offensive to lots of people, and hope that it is offset by other content that appeals to those people, or you shrink down to a niche provider that appeals only to a much smaller portion of the population.
The third factor is that many companies cannot get financing or keep up their share prices unless they can pretend they will be as big as Facebook, so just existing in your little niche may not work well either. Unstoppable force meets immovable objects For one, the “halves” keep changing, sometimes it’s more polarized and sometimes more moderate.
And during a lot of the ‘s, it was perfectly viable to exclude the conservative “half”. They just didn’t push back much, at least when it came to spending. But now things are changing. In Florida, Disney World may be losing their special political status due to Disney’s political posturing.
That would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. Now, as you say, large companies have to worry about alienating anyone. Whether this will cause further fracturing, or we go back to “drab and boring”, I don’t know.
Some companies feel safe appealing to young people, who they perceive as progressive. That may work, but young people are also unpredictable, so it’s not necessarily a good long-term strategy. I think the quality of content is not related to whether is for or against some part of the population. As a matter of fact I find it quite dull and artificial when is so obsessively centered on some aspects like race or sexuality.
It reminds me of Don Quixote: it’s a masterpiece of literature but I find different parts of varying quality. Some parts are eternal and you can relate to the glories and miseries of people from years ago. Other parts, like when Don Quixote starts to ramble about honor, what is honorable or not, and so on and on, are quite boring.
Not because honor is not important, we have laws nowadays about defamation after all, but you cannot make it the center of your life. Making your content either offensive to some part of the population or making it all about some political agenda results in low quality content, IMHO. What is isn’t going to do is make Netflix a partner to something really out there, like Blaze TV. This entire change to their guidelines feels dishoenst. They paint it as their duty to encourage pluralism, but they in fact just want to platform just enough content on the sidelines to make off with the largest profit profit margins.
It’s another surrender to the power of the almighty dollar. I’d much prefer if Netflix was smaller and other competitors were around to fill that hole in the market so I could, as they say, vote with my wallet.
That phrase is never a dismissive sham, I swear! Fair enough. Seems pretty reasonable to expect your employees to be willing to work on what you ask them to work on, given that you’re paying them and they voluntarily signed up to work for you. And as people who were able to get a job at Netflix, they surely had other options. Are those things that specific people were actually promised in an explicit, demonstrable way when they were hired?
It sounds like the kind of thing that people like to convince themselves they were promised because that’s what they hoped and wanted to be true Also, there’s nothing in the article about this? I cancelled my Netflix account after the whole Cuties debacle. While visiting my friends I have noticed that Netflix content quality has been dropping sharply the last few years. Let’s hope this exodus of customers and content creators will create a new, more interesting industry for the future.
Sidebar, but the “Cuties debacle” is nothing more than a moral panic. Cuties is a great movie about an immigrant kid struggling to cope with a broken home by escaping her parents and becoming a “normal French girl.
The story a searing criticism of the sexualization of children, not a celebration it. The dancing scene that everyone complains about is deliberately constructed to disgust the viewer, not to titillate them: you’re meant to see it as the protagonist’s lowest point, when they realize that they are pretending to be someone they’re not in a bid to escape her parents’ marital trauma. People got upset about it without seeing the movie.
It’s a great movie. Jiro 31 days ago root parent next [—]. It’s really hard to tell the difference between “intended to disgust the viewer” and “intended to tittilate the viewer with a fetish I don’t share”.
I mean, any scene of sexualizing children is going to disgust me. How am I supposed to know which ones are meant that way? Also, consider the existence of exploitation films, which loudly proclaim how bad X is in order to have an excuse to show X to people who like seeing X. There is art that blurs this line. Lolita, for instance, blurs this line. Cuties is not anything like that.
The emotions you’re intended to register are very, very clear. The camera keeps panning away from the kids to reveal the shocked, saddened parents, and after the routine finishes the girl breaks out into tears.
It’s a traumatic moment. Maybe the “Cuties debacle” refers to the promotional imagery put out by Netflix with regards to the film. See here  a side-by-side comparison of the original poster for the film and the Netflix poster for the film.
People who only saw the Netflix poster could have a very different view of the movie and some might even refuse to watch the film. I appreciate your points but I am not interested in watching a movie about the hyper sexualization of children or funding the service that provides it. Pedophilia is pedophilia no matter if it is satire, fiction or documented. The movie is about the way that little girls grow up in the society that we all actually live in.
If you’re not interested in seeing honest representations of the the world you inhabit, no one’s forcing you to look, but don’t think your decision to close your eyes has anything to do with protecting little girls.
Its not a great movie, you don’t need to see the whole movie in order to see enough to realize its fucking sick. Blowhards like you love to complain about books they haven’t read and movies they haven’t seen. I saw the whole movie and it is a regular coming of age movie as I remembered Don’t understand what is the fuss about it from the conservatives. I actually think that Cuties was widely mischaracterised as a movie by people who didn’t watch it and just reacted to what they thought the content of the movie was.
It’s actually a good thoughtful coming of age movie that talks about important topics and actually criticises the culture of hypersexualisation of young girls. Hence why it was unethical. I’m sure there are some snuff films with interesting character development too. I really don’t understand why people are down voting you for this. The end does not justify the means.
There are much better ways to tell the story of how young girls are hypersexualized without sexualizing the young girls in the process. You don’t have to watch a documentary on the Zodiac Killer and get presented with unedited video of him actually killing his victims to understand that he was an evil individual.
These views are fairly frequent. One considerably older girl from the rival team, Sweety Swag, lifts her shirt and bra and fully exposes her right breast. To understand that the sexualization of young girls is bad. I’ve heard it quipped that there’s no such thing as anti-war movie.
No matter how searing the criticism, no matter how horrifying the violence: war simply looks good on the screen, and the spikes of adrenaline we get during a war film excite us. The same could be said of films with any form of taboo sexuality, even when done in the spirit of satire or social criticism. The criticism is absolutely worth considering, regarding the ethics of production. But it’s worth contrasting like-with-like not to shut down the argument, but to try to define the boundaries : – Was the production of “The Professional” or “Taxi Driver” ethical?
Both films sexualized young girls; and in the former case, Natalie Portman found the experience particular the response and aftermath moderately traumatic, and explicitly avoided roles with any sexuality until her late twenties. If that instance is over the line, exactly how hard are directors allowed to be on actors, and how much explicit prior consent should be necessary for “method directing”?
We’ve converged on 14 as the minimum age for W-2 employment notwithstanding family businesses, kids with apps, kids with YouTube channels, and “off-books” tasks for pocket money. If hiring a kid for a movie is fine, why can’t that same kid sweep floors at a gas station? We could say “because there’s no other way to make realistic movies”; but that’s not that different from “there’s no other way to tell a story about coming-of-age in a hyper-sexualized world”.
Again, not saying that criticizing the production of Cuties isn’t valid, or appealing to the status quo, and definitely not making some backdoor argument against child labor laws or age-of-consent; just that these questions are larger in scope, and don’t have obvious answers. I read all of your points and they are well made, then I switch app and watch tiktok and I see a totally different world where 14, 16, 17 years do not even need to be forced to expose and I wonder did they just get this way in the era of modern easy internet, or were they already like that?
Then I remember all those movies with skimpy cheerleader outfits going back decades and wonder if we just make ado about nothing or did Hollywood change us? No answer yet unfortunately. Some backstory: Luc Besson directed “The Professional” She later claimed that their relationship inspired “The Professional. Later in Besson was accused of rape by several women, though he denied the accusations and they were never proven in court. I’m not sure whether the fact that the director of a movie with a pedophilic subtext was himself involved in an only-slightly-less pedophilic relationship in real life makes the movie itself less ethical to make or to watch, though it certainly doesn’t make it any better.
Maybe I’m saying that I’m skeptical that a creator who does some immoral thing can make a creation about that same thing with the context and discretion necessary not to glorify it. I guess the parent is making a similar comparison. I am not that enraged by this, but I haven’t watched the movie. I am very weary of any “think of the kids” outrage, it’s usually bullshit You can’t convince me that this is the base rate and up until now 1 in 5 people were LGBTQ but were just afraid of coming out.
Why not? They use to not tell anyone because they were afraid of being murdered, that seems like the most obvious explanation, application of occams razor, etc..
Logic pro x alternatives reddit free.8 Logic Pro X Alternatives – Windows Friendly (Free Options)
Want to jump straight to the answer? Before choosing an alternative, there are some comparable features you would want to look for that Logic offers. Logic has a myriad of reliably built plugins that it comes with, including their vocal compressorand their amp designer is capable of endless guitar altering configurations.
You may need to bring in 3rd party plugins at some point, but Logic starts you off on the right track. Logix a comparable product you will want to look for similar plugin features, built right into your DAW.
Users are logic pro x alternatives reddit free to pay a premium for Mac products largely due logiv their xx design. Logic Pro, being a Mac-based software follows suit with quality aesthetics and is intuitively easy to use.
A good alternative to Logic should share that aspect. A strong community to learn how to utilize certain aspects is almost as important as the software itself. Choosing a DAW comparable to Logic should have a strong community to tap into or a library reddt online tutorials. We took a look at alternatives that are just as affordable from a price point, including the value you can этим crack para ableton live 7 free неплохой out of it.
Here are the top Logic Pro X alternatives with details on pricing, platform support, features, and more. We looked for support on Windows xlternatives as a necessary component as Logic is only available on Mac. Soundtrap is a completely online DAW acquired by Spotify in Above all, the learning curve to accomplish recording a song is made easy with Soundtrap. You do not need to worry xlternatives compatibility with your computer, as it runs in the browser independently, while still operating as professionally built DAW.
One of the more exciting features of Soundtrap is its online collaboration tools. Fdee can easily sync up and work with your producer of band members, as well as find new talent easily by searching. Reason is a DAW that many others have used logic pro x alternatives reddit free a basis for alteernatives ideas and creativity. With their unique rack and patching system, you are able to work with synths and other outboard style gear virtually like it was the real thing!
Take the way you like to approach effects routing to Pro Tools or Logic with ease! Hey producers! Looking for fresh new sounds? There are countless ways to learn how Pro Tools works and is a great option for fgee home studio or professional studio. Logic pro x alternatives reddit free can learn about these here! PreSonus is another brilliantly designed platform that reduces the learning curve when new to music production or starting with a new DAW.
Additionally, the community you can tap into for inspiration, collaboration, and general support is now extensive. User reviews have reported transition from Logic to Studio One as an alternative easier than you might expect. Another great feature with Studio One is the 40GBs of logic pro x alternatives reddit freeloops, and one-shots that it comes with by default.
Many logic pro x alternatives reddit free DAWs require alterntaives upgrade purchases. They have a very active community on their forum, po FL studio has some of the most tutorials and courses online. Sound Forge is focused on the mastering aspects of the production process.
With Sound Forge, you should be able to achieve commercial standard volume in your mastering process, while also reducing noise. Outside of being a free DAW desktop platform, their community is essentially a social network for musicians, producers, and music fans that help you collaborate and make money off of your music.
In addition to Cakewalk, Bandlab has an online mix editor to start making beats, recording audio, and much more. Read our review of Cakewalk here. You would need run a virtual machine with geddit, or try a Hackintosh. Even then, you for the purposes of having a quality DAW, you are more likely to be satisfied fre a quality alternative to Logic, like Soundtrap. Yes there are some free DAWs available.
Typically they come with a нажмите сюда version of the software. Soundtrap by Spotify, is hands down the best online daw with built in autotune. Sign up for free, and make music faster. Soundtrap is available as a completely po DAW powerful enough to produce music at a professional level. The Studio makes projects are available as collaborative loyic for band members or producers. An affordable option, that alterjatives with a day free trial.
Built-In Plugins Logic has a logic pro x alternatives reddit free of reliably built plugins that it comes with, including their vocal compressorand their amp designer is capable of endless guitar altering configurations. Search Users by Talent Category or Genre. Try Soundtrap. Try Reason. Try Pro Tools. Try PreSonus Studio One. Try FL Studio Try Sound Forge Pro.
Try Cakewalk. Sign Up Free. Start Free Trial. Pro Tools. FL Studio
Logic pro x alternatives reddit free
The first book has terrible prose – but is actually pretty well paced and a good story. That’s how bad the sequels were. This happens more times than not.
Can’t edit Ah, how did I forget, in this context, about the suicide being censored out of the first season of 13 Reasons Why , years after its release? What I certainly haven’t seen before is such mutilation of a work as accompanying it with material so expressly immersion-breaking! A song in the soundtrack was also replaced for reasons unknown, but I suppose that falls more into the general topic of silent alterations to published media that online consumption facilitates, an entire discussion to be had on its own.
DangitBobby 31 days ago root parent prev next [—]. Yeah, I find Netflix content to be fairly high quality. I often have to watch a couple of pilots before I find something that hooks me, but I always find something.
And I’ll recommend Maniac to anyone who will listen The OA is amazing This is the same trajectory that Disney is taking. They are losing subscribers also as people are becoming tired of the agenda driven content. What agenda is being driven by The Mandalorian or Encanto? Disney puts out great content year after year. The agenda clearly written on their website.
Thanks for answering I guess. Are they losing subscribers? I canceled over the recent price hike, but I think happened was that Netflix got too good analytics, so while their scripts all hit the good points, it feels very bland.
Then of course the classic stuff they use is classic because it is good, so the average will go down as they no longer have access to it. Same here. The days movie was quite atrocious and borderline porn.
I noticed a sharp decline in quality when Netflix started with their own original content, some of it was good but most of it was mass produced low quality trash.
But it also an inherit problem with any movie streaming service that wants to have fresh content, you have to fill the content bucket with something and mass produced low quality stuff is both cheaper and faster to produce. To be fair, HBO has consistently had an awesome catalog whereas Netflix has been unfulfilling for what feels like years. Someone will be doing layoffs soon and want people to leave voluntarily. Quite possibly, but if you had a labor shortage you would waste your time managing the prima-donnas for lack of alternatives.
If you’re about to do layoffs anyway, no need. What labor shortage? In software engineering or other organizations?
It’s certainly not the former, at least not for companies of any notability e. I work for a well-known company, not as big as FAANG but well on its way and at least as big as any other major tech company in the news. Our engineering shortage is due to the artificial bar we set for hiring. Our recruiters each have dozens of resumes and applications to sift through on a given day.
There isn’t an engineering shortage. There’s a shortage of engineers that don’t meet some incredibly stupid, ego-driven arbitrary gate-keeping policies. There absolutely is. I am not exaggerating. We have never rejected for facile reasons like that. Perhaps your technical bar is very low so you can afford to be picky? If so, your company sounds super fucked up. I really enjoy it when techies show their egos and contempt, without having the full picture. I’m half tempted to report him to HR, to be honest, because his pointless antagonism serves no purpose other than to stroke his own ego by deriding his peers and venting his spleen.
An artificial shortage is still, functionally, a shortage. It doesn’t really matter whether there aren’t enough candidates, or there are plenty of candidates but they all wipe out during interviews – the result is still an inability to hire at the desired rate, and in that situation you don’t court massive layoffs without a reason. This is not true.
People that are not aligned with the company’s values create negative enterprise value. An excellent business decision. Google and Microsoft are probably raking in top talent at bargain prices right now.
Beldin 31 days ago root parent next [—]. I don’t think the brains of top talent stop working when they are unhappy with certain aspects of their current job. Also not with respect to their total compensation. They shouldn’t shy away from controversial content for fear of offending people. They will of course, and I think few people actually have a problem with the general principle of shying away from controversial content if you drill into the specifics.
For instance, I think fairly few would be surprised or offended at Netflix refusing to stream Triumph of the Will. Their core demographic is offended though. I’m not offended by their content, I just think the quality declined faster than they’ve raised prices. That’s why I cancelled. Most of their original content is about as exciting and predictable as talking to a GPT-3 bot. Yeah, I’m getting pretty close.
I use it barely enough to justify the cost. We’ll see after Russian doll season 2. Is it? If this easily offended demographic were really so big the execs at Netflix are not so stupid to alienate them. The more mundane reason is this demographic is very tiny though they may be very vocal. KerrAvon 31 days ago root parent next [—].
I’m not suggesting Nf should. But one persons offended is another’s appealing. There aren’t that many trans people. Who are you referring to?
PolygonSheep 31 days ago root parent prev next [—]. It’s good for engagement. Get everyone talking about the latest Netflix controversy. Release Cuties and piss off all the stupid uptight conservatives who don’t understand it’s just a coming-of-age story, then release a Chappelle comedy special and upset all the right-thinking leftists who don’t understand it’s actually pro-trans.
Again I see no evidence this is the case. Why would they self destruct like that? Negative PR — ineffectively countered — for Cuties and Dave Chapelle will have long term effects on customer and employee sentiment. They will see the problem in hiring first, which you may not be able to see clearly externally at first.
Why shouldn’t they? Because films are art? Netflix is a business. Their interest is art they can profit from. Art that drives a lot of people away probably isn’t going to make the cut unless they think it might draw in more people than it pushes away. They are a private company, they can do what they want, no? Major studios give creative concessions to foreign markets like China in order to be allowed into their film market.
It was incredibly naive of Netflix to think they were too big that they could ignore feedback and input from strong audience bases. You can’t build a mass market product based on servicing the needs of a woke minority in a functional market.
The market will quickly remind you of this mistake when you don’t have any more investors pumping funds into the business. They need more than an ad-supported tier to come out of this. In the midst of a shaky market and lowest ever subscription numbers, they have no choice but to cater to all walks of audiences if they are to survive. That’s now bad for the bottom line.
So Activision-blizzard has been mired in controversy for several years now. Lawsuits, scandals, etc. A lot of content creators have quit producing content for their games and people wonder if Blizzard can recover. IMHO Blizzard is one good release away from people forgetting all these controversies. Netflix has thrown money at creating original content. If you look at some of their releases it’s clear they’ve had more money than they know what to do with.
Money will only take you so far. I agree they needed to do this. I disagree with how they’ve gone about it. This has forced them into price hikes. In their most profitable markets they’re now losing subs. How does this relate to Activision? If things were going well at Netflix eg the share price was hitting new heights, sub numbers were up I guarantee you no one would care about any of this. But things aren’t going well and that foments dissent. So while employees may have legitimate complaints and they do the main story is that things aren’t going well at Netflix and they may have overspent themselves into a really tough spot.
I know I no longer perma-subscribe to Netflix. It’s more expensive than HBO. I’ll pay for months a year to catch up and that’s it. This is what being placated feels like. They’re only interested in a very one-sided depiction of “diversity”.
It’s somewhat surprising how quickly Netflix has given up on their “progressive”values, which probably they thought were the right path to making more money, as soon as they found out they can actually be detrimental to them.
Now they have new values! Free speech, and they think they are a very serious topic that must be treaded carefully and thoughtfully. Because values are very important, not profit. But you can be sure that if showing 10 year olds in a bikini was profitable, and society wasn’t shocked by this, we’d have some new made up value supporting doing so.
This is a religion we are dealing with. A mob and a stupid time in history to live. Netflix pays very well, you shouldn’t need to protest at work. Grow up. Of course Netflix censors specific artists and voices by choosing to just not produce their content. What they mean is they want the selection of content to be done by the people specifically hired and empowered to select content, using the official channels created specifically for this selection process.
Wowfunhappy 31 days ago root parent next [—]. I broadly agree that some people, mostly on more extreme ends of the political spectrum, are trying to censor views they disagree with in a way that is potentially dangerous for a free society. However, I strongly believe that every employee of a company and every shareholder carries a small amount of the moral culpability for their company’s actions.
To purposefully choose an extreme example, would you be willing to help develop spyware for Russia to hack into phones and surreptitiously monitor communications, if your company asked you to do it? One of the most fundamental problems in society right now is that we’ve decided corporations should be exempt from any kind of ethical standards. A corporation’s responsibility is to make as much money as possible, we say.
If it makes money, we can’t expect them to do anything else. Corporations, of course, are imaginary constructs which cannot truly be responsible for anything. Luckily, they are staffed by people , who should have just as much of a moral compass as any other human being. Your moral compass should not evaporate the moment you walk through the company door. Some things are morally neutral. Like a comedy special that doesn’t advocate violence against anyone. I agree with your points.
Right or wrong, it seems plainly evident that the reputation of a company will rub off on the workers. It’s logically in the interests of workers to protest against company decisions that will harm their own reputations. But it’s also logically in the interest of management to maintain control over the direction of a company, so they’re going to push back whenever workers try to have their way.
My point above is simply: This isn’t a battle of censors vs anticensors; it’s a power struggle between workers vs managers. Workers want power to guide content, but Netflix management wants to keep that power for themselves. Netflix management are not anticensors. The power to censor is being contested, not opposed. Very well put. We each have some small effect on the world and we should stay mindful of it. Especially with the amount of power a corporation read large group of people can have on the world.
Longlius 31 days ago root parent prev next [—]. Netflix is giving them a way out of perceived culpability by asking them to leave though. The horror lol. LatteLazy 31 days ago parent prev next [—]. Getting censored because we think there is no demand is very different to getting censored because 1 person at the company doesn’t like your work or opinions or something It’s the difference between being the censor, and being the censored.
Both sides in the dispute want to be the censor, neither wants to be the censored. BonoboIO 31 days ago prev next [—]. I think the best years are over for Netflix. Like inventing batch jobs, but more complicated. I don’t really see how this is news. That is how companies work. Don’t like what the company is doing? Any job is weighing the positives vs the bad. Netflix feels like the discount dvd bin at walmart now.
Hulu seems like a much better option these days. The pendulum has begun its return swing. I can’t help but feel this is aimed at trans activists who protested the Chappelle special. I think he went too far at a couple places, but that’s what comedians do. I don’t think it’s transphobic to push back on trans activists. I have problematic issues bipolar, recovering alcoholic but I don’t go around demanding the world accommodate me and calling people who won’t listen to me haters.
The Chapelle special acts opposite from its criticism. People are already generally discriminatory to the idea of trans. Chapelle brings this to the front, and makes a number of compelling arguments for why it’s “real”. Yes, he makes a number of poor arguments about the trans “community” it’s not one community , but if he were to be on stage talking up everything trans nobody is going to listen.
People can have opinions without being evil. You say you’re part of several vulnerable populations, but you don’t ask the world to “accommodate” you – but the complains trans people have about Chappelle are not about ‘making their lives easier. When trans people point out that they are at much greater risk of violence and also point out studies on how rhetoric contributes to dehumanization promotes violence – you need to take the idea that this isn’t “what comedians do” because the impact of saying things about different groups will be different.
Transphobia isn’t “disagreeing with trans people” – in this case it’s not taking peoples’ views seriously because they are trans. When you say “I have problems too but I don’t bother people about it” – you suggest that your problems are similar to trans peoples’. It is explictly illegal to discriminate against you for your mental health conditions, but trans people have far fewer protections.
Considering that Texas just recently criminalized being trans under the age of 18, I would really ask you to consider if that view is correct and how it makes you look to say it. Edit: I got a little ramble-y – in general: oppression is possible when vulnerable populations’ descriptions of why and how they are treated worse are not taken seriously.
People in vulnerable populations can be wrong like all of us! You’re bringing the law into this but I’m not. That’s a different issue. I support laws for trans people to have equal rights. The world won’t stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that.
Just last night I was watching Amazon’s Bosch and the lead character called someone a “worthless alcoholic. I mean, fair enough, we can set the law aside. Again, my point is that trans people are not complaining about “people saying negative things” in a vacuum. They are complaining about a specific situation that is happening which goes beyond just the context of the Chapelle special.
I don’t believe you are actually responding to the most common trans critique of Chapelle and, in not doing that, you dismiss the actual critiques they are making. Let me put it this way: we don’t have to agree about if the Chapelle special is a problem I don’t happen to worry too much about it but I understand why people are angry.
But, I want you to imagine that the loudest and most alarmist trans folks are correct – Chapelle is helping a trend of violence against trans people. If that were the case which again, is not exactly my belief tho things are pretty bad out there disagreeing with them would be supporting violence against them.
The best way, in my view, to avoid accidentally supporting that kind of thing is to start your personal thoughts and public arguments from the POV of the vulnerable community. That’s how we can all avoid accidentally erasing an important critique. Just in case they do turn out to be correct. I’m just not buying that. Side note: I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word “erasing”. As best I can tell, it’s just an emphatic way of saying “disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X”.
It does advocate for violence. There are also very real statistics and accounts of violence against trans people. The numbers are shy in comparison to COVID deaths, but you have to account for the number of people who do transition and do not hide it.
Is this priority 1 in the world? But we could all show some more god damned humanity to people. No, if you want to actually understand the radical feminist position on this and other topics , read the works of radical feminists, not furious ranting blog posts. You mean that book by Janice Raymond?
They love transgenderism because it does help to get rid of this serious problem of homosexuality and it enforces gender. So we do need to be fighting, I think, transgenderism as a state ‘project’ in terms of gender. That’s uh, Sheila Jeffreys being delusional about how supportive the UK government is towards trans people because Iran’s very exceptional asymmetry in how accepting they are of trans people and not gay people.
Counter suggestion: Read Gender Trouble. That is indeed an abhorrent speech, and it includes an unambiguous, direct call to violence. There are indeed very real statistics of violence against trans people. Also abhorrent and inhuman. This thread started with “how to disagree without being accused of being bigoted. That’s a different situation than being in conversation with another person. If you “respond” to someone in a way that does not acknowledge the content of what they said, they may reasonably accuse you of not taking them seriously.
There are many reasons to not take someone seriously – including having bigoted views. If you want to avoid being accused of being bigoted, I find it helps to acknowledge even to just say you don’t buy them even the most extreme views of someone in a vulnerable population. It is polite and it keeps you in conversation with the other person. If you don’t want to be in conversation with someone then, of course, you don’t need to acknowledge what they say – but they may be upset with you and accuse you of bias.
That’s just I think it’s good practice to be skeptical of the views held by powerful people and give more slack to more marginal views I find less credible, but that’s a personal belief and it has limits. It’s choosing to make a public statement on an issue in a way that leaves out ‘erases’ something that an impacted group thinks.
How big a deal that is depends on the groups involved and the seriousness of the topic. For example, when okareaman said “[t]he world won’t stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that” they are implying that trans people are upset about people saying negative things.
That is probably true – but that’s not the complaint about Chapelle’s jokes. By pretending that the complaint is simpler and focused on personal preference rather than an environment of violence and criminalizing of trans identity – they ‘erase’ those complaints in how they discuss it. Another example could be when people ignore the different economic conditions that Millennials and Baby Boomers face and complain that any lack of Millennial success is due to personal flaws.
We could talk about more extreme examples, but I hope this makes what I mean clearer. Separately from my other reply, I’m curious whether you’d agree with the statement that the solution to bad speech is more speech.
Because along with the most extreme views tend to come the most extreme solutions, most commonly suppressing undesirable speech. Boycotts are the most widely accepted ways of achieving this, but they don’t usually work when the public doesn’t agree with the boycotters.
And it’s clear to me anyway that if one believes speech leads to violence, and if less extreme measures don’t achieve the results you want, one will eventually attempt to have speech such as Chapelle’s comedy routine legally defined as incitement of violence. It is decidedly not incitement, according to the current legal definition, which I endorse.
What do you think? I don’t think this follows from the current jurisprudence on speech at all. There’s a long legal history of untangling legally censurable speech from speech that might incite violence but that incitement is not clear enough to use the law to restrict it. I do not personally feel that Chapelle’s comedy routine invokes violence FWIW I have never spoken to anyone else before, it just did not seem like a big deal – the root of this thread was “I feel like I can disagree with someone without being hateful” and I was just pointing out how they could do that and also that the view they disagreed with wasn’t generally held by the group they attributed it to.
That said there’s a lot to talk about here and clearly I haven’t been fully successful in communicating what I want! In general, I would say that the idea of “a solution” to bad speech is kind of questionable.
Speech acts are part of a tapestry of ideology and rhetoric that can be engaged to all sorts of ends. Treating it as an isolated action feels out of sync with reality to me. Different kinds of bad speech will have different responses – often depending on how much power and influence the speaker has.
For instance, there are many people who advocate pretty extreme reactions to Chapelle that I don’t think are warranted – but the chance of them going into effect seem very small so I don’t spend much time on it. It’s not enough info to just look at the text – you have to also look at context.
I don’t think it’s in a comedians job description to take anything seriously. I agree with your points but his particular joke was about transphobia vs racism. That trans and gay people can turn on their white privilage in a second to attack black people, including using cops to attack black people, knowing cops are trained to fear black people and use excessive force against them.
Of course he isnt taking into account people who are both black and trans but in only this one case, you need to actually understand the joke first. All that said, Netflix is also wrong because as employees of Netflix the people will be linked to this content weather they like it or not and it doesnt matter what content you are talking about weather its The Bodyguard Islamophobic , Dave Chapelle Transphobia , Squid Game anti capatilist or anti communist depending on whi you ask or probably the worst, Cuties GOP and Qanon has diluted this word, but pedophilia.
If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren’t involved. Overall this is a complex issue with multiple layers and I say this all as a hardcore leftist. Like working for a tobacco company, your name and reputation will be tarnished by that association.
The solution is obvious: don’t work for that company. Or maybe Netflix will start to implement solutions like those used by the pornography industry; hire sys admins, programmers etc under a shell company that doesn’t share the name of the main business.
So rather than putting “Software Developer at Pornhub. Which, disclaimer, I do think anyone should be free to do. But people who are offended must be free to share their thoughts as well, then. Humor will always be divisive, which means as a comedian you alone wield the responsibility for where that line will be drawn. Chapelle intentionally draws it on personal identity. I think we can support better comedy than that.
Anyone can make an in-crowd; A great comedian makes you the subject and makes you laugh about it too. You should read up on Bedlam Hospital and learn more about how privileged we are to not be born in that place and time.
I don’t think that supports your argument, I think you actually would be justified to ask the world to accommodate you. No more alcohol consumption in movies then? Romcom heros can’t enjoy champagne at their wedding in the end of the movie, because that doesn’t accommodate recovering alcoholics who suffer in the mainstream culture of drinking during special occasions? I understand the logic of that, but I don’t think the industry should actually go through with that.
Such well-meaning content restrictions would unduly restrict artistic expression. Not sure what that steep price is you would pay to ‘accommodate’ trans people? It requires nothing on your part except for acknowledging and respecting their existence. Where did they say they weren’t acknowledging or accomodating trans people?
Original comment clearly acknowledges trans people exist? OP very clearly writes that they “don’t think it’s transphobic to push back on trans activists” who, unlike him, “demand the world accommodate”. Again, the only ‘accommodation’ that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to ‘push back against’. If you don’t like the thought of buttfucking, don’t. If you don’t like the thought of people who identify differently from their biological sex, don’t.
If you don’t like the thought of eating kale, don’t. It’s simple, it costs you nothing. Nothing at all. PolygonSheep 31 days ago root parent next [—]. But OP is letting them live. Unless you are alleging OP is running around killing trans people?? OP is making no statement about what they do, only that they find it reasonable to push back against that simple wish of the trans community. Your comment, like speech in general I admit, doesn’t tell the whole truth. Dave Chapelle nor any comedian that I know of go around saying trans people should not be allowed to live.
Or have I missed something? Shifting goalposts, are we, after your ‘clearly’ comment did not even contain a grain of truth about what OP posted? And yes, you are missing something. Go ahead and watch Chapelle. The issue isn’t that he makes a joke about trans people. Sure, I’d assume people in general may not like having jokes made at their expense, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn’t worthy to be supported.
As much as I like Chapelle and his amazing ability to do hour-long stand-ups where he doesn’t even tell jokes and yet you’re mesmerized, I’ll have to side with the ‘punching down’ argument.
This campaign of his will not age well. Just imagine that same setup to watch someone rant for an hour against women suffrage, or gay or Black rights, etc.
Sure, some will like this. Ricky Gervais does a whole special taking the mick out of Christianity. Do you also think he shouldn’t be allowed to do that?
Or is it only trans people you don’t think people should be able to joke about? Why is that an issue? Their cause is to enact a redefinition of “woman” and “man” and in some contexts, “female” and “male” in terms of so-called gender identity, rather than sex.
This is a sweeping, fundamental change to how most people understand those terms, and there is growing evidence of some very negative outcomes of doing so. Of course there will be pushback on this. And it’s not a bad thing to do so. Not correct, it harms people and they attempt to convert others which can result in harm to your family and friends. Nobody’s trying to convert your family, you’re just trying to stop your family from knowing LGBT people exist.
See libs of tiktok – kids are already being groomed at young age. Is that before or after they are drafted to serve in Jewish Space Lasers? Anyone who spends more than 5 seconds investigating that would see they’ve exposed approximately zero groomers. Is it OK to have sports leagues that exclude biological males in order to promote athleticism among biological females?
For me that’s the only interesting discussion to be had here. Separation into female and male leagues were installed partially because of sex so that it’s fairer , but initially mainly because of gender women must not do the same fun things we do. Then again, it is ‘unfair’ that Simone Biles has the physique she has that fits to her chosen sport better than mine; Michael Phelps likewise; Alex Honnold processes fear differently from most of us, etc.
I don’t know all the history of it so I won’t make claims about how it started. But what you’re saying does not describe the reality of highschool sports as I experienced it.
We all swam in the same lanes of the same pools, swimming the same practice given by the same coaches. Virtually all of us were taught how to swim by the same woman.
The only separation was the locker rooms, and the competitive events during meets. Finding a comparable product you will want to look for similar plugin features, built right into your DAW. Users are willing to pay a premium for Mac products largely due to their product design. Logic Pro, being a Mac-based software follows suit with quality aesthetics and is intuitively easy to use.
A good alternative to Logic should share that aspect. A strong community to learn how to utilize certain aspects is almost as important as the software itself. Choosing a DAW comparable to Logic should have a strong community to tap into or a library of online tutorials. We took a look at alternatives that are just as affordable from a price point, including the value you can get out of it. Here are the top Logic Pro X alternatives with details on pricing, platform support, features, and more.
We looked for support on Windows machines as a necessary component as Logic is only available on Mac. Soundtrap is a completely online DAW acquired by Spotify in Above all, the learning curve to accomplish recording a song is made easy with Soundtrap. You do not need to worry about compatibility with your computer, as it runs in the browser independently, while still operating as professionally built DAW. One of the more exciting features of Soundtrap is its online collaboration tools. You can easily sync up and work with your producer of band members, as well as find new talent easily by searching.
Reason is a DAW that many others have used as a basis for new ideas and creativity. With their unique rack and patching system, you are able to work with synths and other outboard style gear virtually like it was the real thing! Take the way you like to approach effects routing to Pro Tools or Logic with ease!
Hey producers! Looking for fresh new sounds? There are countless ways to learn how Pro Tools works and is a great option for a home studio or professional studio. You can learn about these here! PreSonus is another brilliantly designed platform that reduces the learning curve when new to music production or starting with a new DAW.
Additionally, the community you can tap into for inspiration, collaboration, and general support is now extensive. User reviews have reported transition from Logic to Studio One as an alternative easier than you might expect. Another great feature with Studio One is the 40GBs of samples , loops, and one-shots that it comes with by default. Many other DAWs require annual upgrade purchases. They have a very active community on their forum, and FL studio has some of the most tutorials and courses online.
Sound Forge is focused on the mastering aspects of the production process. With Sound Forge, you should be able to achieve commercial standard volume in your mastering process, while also reducing noise.
Logic pro x alternatives reddit free
Действительно закончилось. Теперь можно возвращаться домой. Кольцо на пальце и есть тот Грааль, который он http://replace.me/29075.txt. Беккер поднял руку к свету и вгляделся в выгравированные на золоте знаки. Его взгляд не фокусировался, и он не мог прочитать надпись, но, похоже, она сделана по-английски.