Doonge

We evolved as a paranoid species (as most species) - fear can be life-saving. Especially on the long time. Being fearless means being out of the gene pool.

A mammal hear some noise out of some bush, he will flee. Perhaps it's the wind, perhaps it's a predator.

You look at the cost of fear-induced actions (not getting money for driving a black client for instance), and the gain (not being mugged and losing your car for instance), and their respective probabilities.

Also, we are very visual creatures. We are very good at stereotyping (stereotyping is not 100% accurate, but generally quite accurate, for instance we have a quite efficient "gaydar").

We have to learn not to be afraid of "the other" only if it's worth it. If you look at the stats, blacks suffer from stereotyping and frisk policies, but they also commit a disproportionate amount of crimes. Now, a random citizen hasn't much reason to be afraid most of the time, as he's diving in a social network that he knows and that is hopefully already filtering thugs (of all colors). But taxi drivers and cops do not know who they are dealing with. Stereotyping is not perfect, but it's heavily useful when you know nothing about who you deal with. As soon as you are getting acquainted with individuals, stereotype lose their interest and people naturally do not rely on them.

Bottom line is: in the absence of information, people will be racist or whatever (they will rely on their stereotype, that generally prove to be accurate), and believing stereotypes and fear are always counterproductive is stupid.

If you live next to thugs, you're no middle class. Unless California has thugs everywhere. But if you live in the shittiest neighborhood, you're at the bottom of the city.

A lowerclass american might earn more than a middleclass from a third world country for instance, in term of raw money, but that doesn't make him upper class.

Lastly, I would say that you suffer from the same problem (in my view) than udarnel. By being oversensitive to something, you begin to become it. You'd be afraid of Jews and Black demonization for instance, but you'd not be below demonizing those you perceive as demonizator, or at least blind to those who commit it (thus giving them undue influence over you).

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/(it's a blog of a democrat/libertarian jewish psychiatrist)

@udarnel

We have discussed a lot already. And I think I've written a lot in your thread overall. Convincing you that you are racist doesn't sound appealing to me.

By the way, racism is not recognizing there's a physical difference (are you a racist if you notice there are blondes and brunettes?), it's telling: hey, those persons are different, then they are shit.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Which is why you are a racist. Tell me, do you think whites are racists?

As for India, you didn't read, maybe, about that village whose elders gang raped a woman of the village all night along because she got engaged to a man from a neighboring village... And what about that shittiest costume of burning the wife alive when the husband dies? And it's not only women, but children too.

You read what you want to read, and you draw the conclusions you want to draw. Shit happens, but that's not because it does that it is the norm. Rapists, and especially pedophiles, are considered the scum of the earth by everyone, including hard criminal in prison. Pedophiles are killed in prison by their inmates. You just want to believe you're noble because you stand for women and that you're alone in this, but you're wrong. And it makes you sexist.

Your comment about gun control and mass shooting in school is so ridiculous I'm now wondering if you're a troll or a brainwashed person. We have gun control in Europe, and we have shootings. In the grand scheme of things, mass shootings in schools are horrifying but account for a negligible amount of victims. There's an obscene amount of victims in the ghettos, but you don't care apparently as you care for the newstories with mass appeal, like an horrific rape in India or a school shooting. Did you fall for the Rolling Stone's Jackie story? It sure was crunchy.

You care when a white cop kills a black person, but I bet you don't care when whites kill each others or black kills each others. And I bet you don't care when a black cop kill a white guy.

I like to think of this as the "gotcha" moment. Not once did I mention any sort of skin color or ethnicity. You made the assumption based on the words "inner-city" and "hoodlum" that I meant only blacks, but surprise surprise, there's a whole bunch of whites who are just as bad and are inner-city. This is what the DNC failed to pick up on the entire campaign run. You're all too busy nit-picking his words and trying to portray him as some kind of white supremacist overlord that you don't even understand the depths of your own racial bias. And, contrary to whatever popular beliefs you have in the EU, it is entirely possible to be racist against whites.

 

 

Being anti-global warming was said in the sense that he was opposed to the concept, but I can see how I may have phrased it weirdly.

To be honest with you, I think that this belief you speak of is originating from USA. This wave comes from you, as there are several things where USA innovates and Europe lags 3-5 years behind. Imho, this "fad" is one of them. Because racism is less of a thing here. In the US, strangely as there are mexicans and asians too, there is a whole black vs white racism history and sensivity.

However, when it comes to colonialism and thinking you owe reparation to third world countries, that's probably from us.

I assume that countries that are historically christians have culture of guilt, and the guilt travel easily between both our cultures (US and Europe).

No I don't mean you are patronizing, just flat out racist. You are also patronizing, but not towards me or the racists, you are patronizing towards the people you perceive as victims.

Basically, you react to words like hoodlums only when it's not towards white christian whatever. White christians hetero victims are not on your radar at all. Same rethoric than when you say that handicapped people can't deal with criticism or insults, and say that it's OK if non-handicapped people are fucked for slight reasons. You do not have overarching rules for everybody, but you divide people into categories like white and non-white, handicapped and non-handicapped, heterosexual and non-heterosexual, then apply different rules. One of those categories make you a racist. If you do not see people as individual but as groups, it's easy to be racist/sexist/whateverist.

Raping women is not seen as a right of men in India. You don't understand the dynamics. In "patriarchies", men are given more rights but also more obligations, while the women less right and less obligations. Women are treated somehow like children, and "protected". If it wasn't the case, there would be no civilization to begin with. In India, if a man is accused of raping a woman, he will be beaten up to pulp or outright killed summarily, if not by all the people around, by family and friends.

Your comment about marriage tells me you don't understand marriage, unless you consider children as "family heirloom".

Being racist is "normal" in the sense everybody is racist to some extent, but we don't call everybody racist. It's those above some norm, and for me you fit the bill. You are basically everything you shout against. You are even sexist by thinking indian men are monster and indian women victims just because genitalia.

You may "actually live there", but unless you are a congressman in disguise, you know exactly as much as us.

 

1. I really doubt that somebody wanting to pump the oil industry can be considered anti-global warming.

2. interstate relations refers to US versus other countries of the world; I don't give a damn about internal issues of the federal government

3. tolerance means exactly this: stopping dubbing everyone who isn't white, christian and straight as a "hoodlums".

4. this is the only true thing you said. But I'm not saying I want US to meddle: I'm saying that like it or not they HAVE BEEN meddling; and that they are so much of a powerhouse that what they do concerns everyone in this world

5. what else could they do? everybody needs to know what'll await them so they can prepare

6. we have MILLIONS of immigrants in Europe right now, taking free money daily for their basic needs. I don't like it, but it's us westerners, you americans on top, who lead to this; we should take responsibility, shouldn't we?

7. banning gays is a metaphor: it means that if you revert their right to marry, you are bringing us back to shitting on them. Gay marriage is the first, necessary step to stop gay persecution.

8. see point 6

9. I don't really understand what you are saying. Welfare states are states where everybody pays some more taxes so that when they need 35 000 euros (price of a pace maker, just for instance) surgery they don't pay nothing: everybody pays a small sum so that if they need a super big sum and they obviously don't have it they are not left dying.

I think he agreed with you on 1. Wasn't saying the opposite.

Your own racism shows in your 3. I knew it would at some point.

6 is highly dubious. Not only are the immigrants from various countries - not all in war (economic migrants not war refugees); but even if it was the case, and even if it was "our fault", the conclusion that we need to move them in our own countries instead of doing work where they live doesn't automatically follow.

7 is ridiculous. But you need to define first what marriage is. My godfather is a gay man, in a gay community. The gay community is not united with you about the gay marriage thing. Because marriage can mean many things. I'm pro gay-marriage in the civil sense, but even in that sense many gays aren't interested. Marriage is weak.

Your 8 has next to no relation to 6. If you define what you consider as somebody worthy of help (a poor war refugee or whatever), then you have a rule, and you make a law. Illegals are against the law of the country. Certainly you don't owe to the WHOLE WORLD do you? I find your point of view funny because if we were so responsible for all the problems in the world, it would be a strong case for white supremacy. You want to tether non-whites.

Welfare state isn't the sole solution to help people in need. It sure is convenient not having to "beg" for help and having all automated, but it comes with drawbacks. It's not the ultimate solution. I enjoy the welfare state, but I have worked alongside it and it's not that pretty. In medicine, it creates problems along the line of what subsidied and what's not. Governement, bureaucracy, is lagging behind. Innovation is made more difficult because of it. And supersystem like this are ripe to abuse, as who cares if money gets stolen or wasted?

I don't think USA was ever at the forefront of climate change. Green parties, I believe, are an European thing. I remember feeling angry about it years ago, as even then the USA was behind.

I don't believe the progress of tolerance is really helped by politics. It's very mixed. Putting a gun to the head of a racist won't make him not racist. Here in Europe we have anti hate-speech laws, and to me they seem to do more harm than good when it comes to racism and all that. I think one of the reason is because it's anti hatespeech but ALSO anti free speech. It's sometime easy to silence people by invoquing hate speech, even when what they say isn't and is valuable and important conversation. There is a good intent, but psychos are not afraid to use this law to their benefit and silence even normal people.

Another reason would be that hate speech become split into two strong parts while anti-anti hate speech (yeah ^^) becomes lazy and weak: one part of the hatespeech goes underground, and grow really really nasty and unchecked. Another part of the hate speech stay public, but as it has to bear extreme pressure, it grows strong - while the opponents grew lazy (because shouting racism / extremism etc... is easy). So extremists learn and become charismatic.

In science, theorically, there should be pressure (peer reviewed stuff) everywhere, it is how theory and model grow strong, it is how you find errors. It is how you get good science.

In speech, when good speech has no pressure against it, it becomes bad.

You can make a parallel with the notion of "tough love". You want your children to grow strong.

I don't think interstate relation are relatively bad with Trump. You know they weren't good with Hillary, as she was oddly anti diplomatic against Russia. And you know she voted for wars at her various political tenures.

I don't see Trump "banning gays", but with Pence perhaps there will be a backlash against gay marriage (that's bad but it's NOT the same thing as a gay ban). I doubt it however as I don't recall gay marriage being a presidential decision to begin with (it wasn't Obama who decided it?). So I don't believe it's presidential matter.

And about social welfare, well social welfare in the sense you mean it is paid "by the governement" through taxes. If the economy is bad social welfare goes down anyway. So if Trump manages to make america great again (his slogan), even if he cuts social welfare it doesn't mean overall that social welfare will be worse off. I don't know if Trump can improve economy, it's out of my depth, but if he practices America first and the world second, then it's a good start to improve the social welfare of american (perhaps at the expense of the social welfare everywhere else).

Nearly all your points seem superficial to me. And it's good to know you're not American (you should have disclosed it in your OP), but it paints your OP in an even worse light.

That's a given. Let's not forget that the US were built on the blood of entire civilizations. And that the aftermath to Hitler consisted in the Western Block summarily executing German officers at Nuremberg. And why not talking about the outrageous shame of the Tuskegee experiments (and too many others experiments of the sort...), which did the same as Hitler, but after taking him down as the Devil...

But I'd say that those who support Trump are the same trash that supports the US's most ruthless internal and foreign policies... racism, utter disregard for people of other countries, complete intolerance towards non-bigot non-christians, and so on. Clinton wasn't a satisfying choice, by no means, but all the young and educated voted her, because voting Trump meant voting for all the bad in America. Trump winning means that most Americans WANT to be Nazis

I'm not an american, the elections were interesting to me but I wasn't concerned (I'm saying this to Natureboy so knows that I have no pretention of knowing much).

You are foolish. Probably because you are young and probably see yourself as educated - I'm just picking up your comment about young and educated people voting for Hillary.

By your attitude and your fears, you are cementing the very thing you claim to be against. By demonizing all who voted for Trump you make them stronger because you miss the roots and because you present yourself as an enemy they can unite against. You are projecting your own racism and bigotry everywhere.

If you had said that a lot of Trump supporters, for instance the ones that suffer from the poor economic problems (coal regions, metallurgy etc...), are just useful idiots for the nazi wannabes (the people that would run Trump's campaign and "in the know"), then I could pretend you are being reasonable. Politicians lie, and poor gullible schmucks, common people, are not the evil incarnate. I think that half the americans nazis wannabes were just pulled out of your ass, because I didn't see them 4 years ago nor 8 years ago. To put things in perspective, I remember people like you saying that the sky was falling when Obama was elected, and I remember an initiative to secede Texas like California now

It is not a coincidence that some vehement anti-gay persons, including powerful politicians who end up hurting gays through their legislation, are gay themselves; that some "feminist" men who are shouting loudly against misogyny are, in fact, deeply misogynist themselves; that some anti-racism activists are deeply racists. The name is overcompensation.

I thought the idea for the electoral college came from Alexander Hamilton. Wasn't it in one of the Federalist papers? Think that preceded Andrew Jackson by quite a bit.

In another words the system was designed from the start to prevent democracy. To protect the opulent minority against the impoverished masses, as Madison puts it.

I'm not under the impression that the opulent minority (aka the 1%) was pro-trump.

The thread seems long and opens a lot of points.

The opening statement is stupid. Importing a foreign comic and reading it next to a translation file is an overpriced subpar experience. Additionally, what he say has nothing to do with scanlators whatsoever. Let's imagine a scanlator will release a translation text file and urge its readers to buy the book. Pirates will upload the book and the translation anyway. And in practice we will be back to the original situation. In fact, it's what already happening even with publisher's translations. That scanlators release alternative translations ("alternative" at worse, because official translation can be inexistant) changes nothing. If somebody want to give money to the author, he will.

When an user makes a parallel to Youtube, the OP says that official channels get advertisement money. Aside the immediate objection that follows in the thread, the OP surreptitiously doesn't talk about adblockers.

Bottom line is that people pay different prices anyway you slice it, and that almost everybody likes it when authors they like earn enough money.

Personally one thing that I consider sacred is the paternity. I really dislike when people remove or misattribute the author's name. Money is less ethically binary for me.

You have not understood what I said.

You seem to have a nice mind, but understand that you're just offering words.

In life, it's best when people don't need to have to trust you, or at the minimum (and you should not need to trust people too much either).

Furthermore (and building up), you ask for our trust, but why would we trust you? I'm not telling that you're a liar, I'm telling that "we" have no particular problem as of now, and you don't ask any real commitment from us. You won't pressure us into working some specific schedule, you won't ask us to work on series we don't want to work on. In other words, the trust we would grant you amount to no real commitment. It is not trust. There's nothing I see that we would be trusting to you.

Scanlators are a free bunch of people working-as-they-see-fit. They are not really reliable, and there's nothing binding us to you even if we give you our trust. Even with the word of some groups, you have nothing much to offer publishers. Sure, I could take no risk and offer you my "trust", but even if publishers can go past the potential disdain they hold for "pirates", they will know that this "trust" I gave you amounts to nothing much.

If there's money to be done with publisher approved scanlation, these publishers will build themselves the tools, not rely on third party. Naver / LINE / webtoons.com seems do be doing fine (but that's internet published comics, though publishers are putting more and more paper comics online aswell).

The very moment you succeed in your endeavor, that is breaking the wall between scanlators and publishers, the very moment you become redundant and kill your own business model. You will not retain your position as intermediary. From my perspective, it is not an argument against you as it is a cool situation to be in, but it's self-defeating for you.

It's nice to have beautiful ideas, but a strong person is needed to manage them up until success.

What would be your strong point?

You code well and you provide excellent tools to scanlators?

You're an experienced negociator and you can bring in the series your scanlators want to work on?

Your writing in this thread isn't showing me anything. I have no proof of concept, and nothing impressive to baw at.

Hello people,

TL;DR: LINE Webtoon is hiring freelance translators and proofreaders, send them a resume in English to [email protected] if you're interested. Please pass the word around if you know somebody who might. (and/or pass along the attached file).

I'm a member of the Oddsquad Scanlation group, and I was contacted a while ago by a member of LINE/Naver staff. He wanted to get in contact with our translators, and some of them agreed to have a chat.

Long story short, he wanted to hire them, and one of our translators was very interested (she even went in Korea to complete her studies; that is not necessary however). She was hired, and she's currently quite happy with it.

The staff member from LINE asked me if I knew more people willing to be hired. I personally don't, but the community is big.  I'm posting here because it's the first one that came to my mind.

Lezhin made a similar annoucement (with the help of Grumpy), don't hesitate to compare the offers (competition is good for salary rates! ^^).

I don't exactly know why they don't take this kind of announcement in their own hands, but I guess publishers are still shy about publicly conversing with the scanlation scene. It's up to us to change the scenery, and promote freelance translation!

I included the attachment they gave me, which describes succintly the offer.

The site is very badly optimized.

If it's not a bandwith problem but only a processing problem, you have a lot of margin to improve on.

I understand you don't want to lose manhours into this, but convincing users takes time too, and going more private is just a temporary fix if what you fight against are crawlers. Ergo, you engage in a Red Queen Race against other programmers: that's a real time sink in my book.

The API (and proper caching) is the appropriate answer to the problem if processing is the problem.

Apparently changes already have been implemented (I'm not reading much webtoons lately so I don't know). We'll see.

@Nepenthe

There's plenty of reasons people distord how they present things, in general. I am not trying to imagine why. I wasn't calling him a bad name either, as I don't feel threatened. What is your point?

@Socrates

Considering what I said is statistics 101, I will assume your allusion to the discipline is merely sweet irony.

Furthermore, I did consider problem 2 and 3, so I guess you should learn to read and avoid reacting if you feel that maybe, just maybe, you don't understand someone's points.

Regarding problem 2, and I don't have myself access to the beta reader, the dimension of the ads banner is not a problem (it's 100% within control), however Grumpy is hinting at the fact that the ads are not "loaded each time but only once". I hinted back that playing with the navigation bar of the browser (and hence the session) might cause problems with that. If you don't understand, it's not your business.

Regarding problem 3, it's related to my own point 3.  Plus, even if one consider the ads average loading time, it's not to say people would prefer any improvement on the average at the expense of any decrease for the first session visit. Again, if you do not understand, it is not your business and you don't have to react to what I'm saying; just let Grumpy get the opinions.

Ok, roughly done.

I forked his repo https://github.com/doonge/MangaOnlineViewer

and made the changes you want.

I've made a pull, in case he want to integrate what I did in his own code

https://github.com/TagoDR/MangaOnlineViewer/pull/1

Best whishes.

explanation: you have three new icon, which describe the viewing mode (vertical, left to right, right to left). When you enable a lateral mode, the page becomes fluid and you can play with your window size and/or the zoom feature to have two images one next to another.