Nah, you're right to have pointed it out, especially because of the circumstances. No distress here. ☮

Whoops, genuinely didn't mean to.

“And I feel like there’s a lack of listening, and I just feel like I need to bring that up because it affects my life and people I really care about’s life …,” the student added.

“And again, this is about the fact that your voice, your perspective, your experience, your truth cannot be suppressed, and it must be heard. … Our goal should be unity, but not uniformity,” Harris said. “And the point that you’re making about policies that relates to Middle East policy, foreign policy. We still have healthy debates in our country, about what is the right path. And nobody’s voice should be suppressed on that.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics/adl-kamala-harris-israel-funding/index.html

Trump just looks out for himself.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/donald-trump-israel-netanyahu-diplomacy/index.html

Reversing the tide takes time. Do you want to start now or later?

I see, these are the only issues to be concerned about. Yup, that's it. There is nothing else at all. Well I guess we should just sit on our hands as others bleed. /s

Maybe vote for someone who is more likely to negotiate over these issues. I wonder who is more likely to listen.

I understand where you're coming from: If natural dialogue is preferred for a creative work, then having laughter audio is inappropriate.

I disagree that canned laughter and live audience laughter are equivalent.

With live audience reactions it's like watching a theatre presentation, you get to be part of the crowd. We get a chance to laugh at the jokes at a natural pace (allowing for pauses so we don't miss the next joke) that the audience would set, and their reactions are modulated organically.

Canned laughter doesn't do this, it doesn't set a natural pace. It is calculated by an audio engineer, and the laughter will be an unnatural reaction to the joke presented.

It's the difference between a genuine and forced smile. We can naturally sense something is off. A live audience reaction is superior to canned laughter in most cases.

That being said, some shows don't need laughter audio to be enjoyable.

I don't understand the reasoning. The serving class has never been pretty to behold. Wealthy people are the pretty ones.

We know that they're wealthy because they haven't got shit all over them.

Just swap crocodile for dragon and we have the beginnings of a great fantasy story.

If you're claiming my fridge has no tiny invisible pink elephants you are welcome to provide evidence.

I will make no claims on the matter and thus have to provide no evidence either way.

Edit: I think you're confusing me for the other guy.

All y'all need to watch the video.

Why wouldn’t the original actor be the authority on the subject?

Careful. Would you say the same thing about Jared Leto and his characters? Or about ?

it’s with the ones that amateurs think that are safe because they get sloppy with them.

I changed and highlighted a word that I have concerns about. Keeping in mind, an amateur would have to make sure they correctly purify the end product, and make sure dichloromethane isn't in the end product.

More like "If you don't action your words, then you're full of hot air."

There are too many occasions of Internet whiners yelling "Eat the rich" then not actually eating the rich.

Their bark is worse than their bite. They live to sow anger, but not action.