Matthew W. Phillips

I must admit that it isn't generally my "gay or trans friends" that are complaining most of the time. It is usually the straight white liberal (man or woman) who is doing the complaining for them; often at awkward times that makes the gay/trans person visibly uncomfortable when they just want to fit in but are reminded constantly, even by their well meaning liberal friends, that they are different and how different they are. Oh, I know Alabama's reputation. I was pointing out that these debates are not always drawn along ideological lines. There was something about gay marriage that didn't sit well initially amongst even some liberals. TL;DR: People aren't inherently bad just for taking a certain position. Life is far more complex and intricate than most like to admit. Of course people aren't inspecting genitals. And Blaire White (YouTuber) did a humorous test of going into a male bathroom (Blaire is trans female if you don't know who she is) and was told to leave by an employee because "women aren't permitted in the men's bathroom". However, Blaire White is not a typical trans-female. Pretty much no one would see her and suspect that she was born a man. I think that the level of "stealth" a trans person can pull off has a lot to do with how they are perceived. There is a world of difference from someone like Blaire walking into a women's bathroom vs someone like myself in the early stages of transition (I'm 6'0, 185 lbs, broad back, prominent Adam's apple, etc). No one is tripping if Blaire goes into their bathroom. Someone like me though would be a legitimate concern for ladies and I cannot blame them if they were terrified.

True. That is why we have Constitutional courts. You know, those same courts that subverted the bigoted will of that terrible state that twice voted to ban gay marriage? What state was that again? Georgia? Alabama? Texas? Nope...it was California. Yes, the liberal paradise twice voted to ban gay marriage. But despite that, the courts overturned that. So there is still checks and balances. It may not move as fast as you want but it does work.

Once again, we come back to the "how to balance the rights of some with the rights of others." Do you care to ask the biological women what they think of biological men using their restroom? As I said, I am a centrist so I am going to always consider an opposing argument; no matter what.

What do you mean "take bathrooms away from?" I wasn't aware that trans people were not permitted to use the restroom. I thought the argument was that they use the restroom of the biological sex they were assigned by the Dr. at birth?

Well yeah, this is true. But bad politics are something people have been complaining about since the beginning of government, I imagine. The best thing to do is what people have always done here. Vote. If that isn't working then it means that your views are in the minority. From where I see things, this country is largely divided among ideological lines. The more bitterly they fight, the worse it gets. I am having a particularly tough time from both sides because I am an independent who is a centrist. I have noticed that both sides of the isle are becoming more hostile to each other and to people like me. People don't want to compromise or find common sense solutions anymore. They want "my way or the highway". As much as I try not to think about it, I cannot see any path to the future that will not include some kind of civil war 2.0 eventually. Maybe not a physical war like before but more like a cold war of segregation between different states. It is a sad state of affairs but it is what it is.

Nope, not at all. Another issue I am having with your arguments is because you try to take complex issues and reduce them to sound bytes. You are also adding spin on your arguments. Instead of saying something like "Advocating that gay people not be bullied by people using specious “religious freedom” laws...", why not break down the details of what you disagree with and argue the point from an intellectual position. It is like when someone calls the police over a dispute. A police officer (or DA, or judge) is not interested in your opinions of the facts. They only care about the facts and then they make up their own mind. Using a term like "bullied" is a term that is open to interpretation. That is not a strict retelling of the facts.

That is the thing...the situation shouldn't even be framed like this. It should be a case of "does the photographer (or other service person) want to do this job?" If the answer is no, I don't believe they should have to do it (or face punishment). To deny the ability to turn down labor is, as Karim said, slavery. I know you don't believe it but much of this has far more to do with a person's economic status and the circles they run in as opposed to being a member of a "marginalized group." Like any group, there is always going to be a benefit to being wealthy and well-connected. Conversely, there is always going to be a struggle when you are poor and do not have a strong network.

I agree with a lot of your takes, Chance, but where we differ is because I take the more pragmatic approach of recognizing that not everyone is going to agree with me. I prefer to think in terms of "compromise" as opposed to alienating people further by calling them bigots, etc. Even if you believe that is what some of these people are, do you really think telling them that is going to change their mind or perspective? It seems to me that the most effective solution is to try to find common sense solutions to these problems that are acceptable (not optimal) to everyone. For example, the trans-bathroom debate. That one comes down to three options: Privacy Equality Convenience (Pick Two of above) To keep the peace, giving up convenience seems like the easiest one.

Having a computing background, I recognize that any algorithm is only as good as the rules that govern it. I don't doubt that an algorithm has the capability to be superior (since it could be tailor made to the image at hand). Where I express doubt is in how much research and accuracy is present in the algorithm used. When writing a program, your algorithm is your rules that govern the program. These rules must be precise and explicit for the program to accomplish this task. I would be curious to know what "rules" they are using with regards to the grain structure for am image. Is this done on a per pixel basis or is the whole image scanned to get an approximation of how to set up the grain structure?

Calling laws "anti-trans" is an over simplification. Many of those have to do with the trans-female in female sports debate which is far more nuanced that people like you want to admit. Regardless of what feels good to you, there is a biological difference between born males and born females. Even with hormone replacement therapy, there are differences in muscle mass, bone density, etc that give a biological male an edge over a biological female. That isn't bigotry, that is science. Many of those sorts of arguments have more to do with the fairness of the competition and not as a way to prevent trans students from competing in sports. My question to you on that grounds is this: At what point do the rights of some infringe on the rights of others? On one hand, you discuss women's rights in this thread (right to vote) but now you are fine with women's sports essentially being destroyed by allowing biological men to compete with them? Look at the results of some of these competitions that have been "inclusive" and you will quickly see that the results aren't even close. Biological women have de facto been stripped of the ability to truly compete in their own sports. At this point, we might as well not separate sports by gender lines anymore. Edit: As for the "trans-bathroom" debate, I admit that this is a stupid thing to fight over. The easy solution to satisfy everyone is to just have businesses invest in single-unit unisex bathrooms. Now everyone gets privacy and no one is disenfranchised. This issue seems more like a non-issue to me.

But if you read the rest of my quote, I said that I am completely fine with service people denying me service for any reason they see fit. Therefore, I do not see it as "marginalizing" anyone to deny them service. I am literally saying that I am fine with going through the same so-called "oppression" that those groups are dealing with. If I don't care about it directed at me, why would I care if it is directed at someone else? I realize that no one in this world owes me anything. I am fine with it. If they wont do something for me, I guess I find someone else or do it myself if it is important enough.

Drunk driving has a negative impact for society regardless of emotional motivation. In addition to injuries and potential loss of life, drunk driving also causes property damage ($$$), instability on the roadways, and accidents cause gridlock which has a windfall effect on the community as a whole. It is the opposite of a "public good". Once again, the issue is more of a pragmatic one that an emotional one. Having approximately half of the adult population not able to influence the direction of the country isn't just "discriminatory"; it is stupid. When one studies management theory, you learn that diversity of opinion and perspective is a powerful thing. This is what is not talked about enough by proponents of "social justice". Businesses that embrace diversity of viewpoint, perspective, culture, etc tend to benefit because they have a larger well of creativity and ideas to draw from. This is never the selling point though as people like you promote the "beat you over the head" approach and tell you to embrace diversity because it is the "right thing to do" and that if you disagree, you are a bigot. Catching flies with honey is always better than using vinegar. But when you make people out to be terrible people from the get go, don't expect them to consider anything you have to say. Sure, emotions are stronger than logic for most people. This is because people are inherently reactive. Emotions happen to you whereas logic takes a conscious effort to think though a problem and formulate a solution; it also takes the confidence and will to take a first step in most cases.

I looked into this...interesting. But macOS only + $1,000 for full version gets a "no dawg" from me.

Thanks for the in-depth tutorial. I appreciate it.

I could be outdated on this but it used to be Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism were the three largest religions in the world by affiliation. Has this changed? I haven't "told most everyone here". I told Chance directly. If you have contradictions to bring up then go for it. But a blanket statement like above has no value if you don't point out specifics.

I would like to know how you can generalize this point? I have known black people from two parent households where both parents had PhDs and I have known white people from single mother homes where their mom had a boyfriend that beat them and locked them in a closet. It must be great to generalize people based on stereotypes. Are you sure it isn't you that has bias?

This right here shows that you have lost the argument. You are far too emotionally invested. I prefer to look at the reasoning of arguments when assessing things instead of feelings. I would never say I "hate" anyone; even someone who disagrees with me. You sound like one of those people who thinks that someone is a bigot just because they see the world differently than you. Regarding religion, I do agree with the Golden Rule "Do unto others." So I am consistent in saying that I couldn't care less if some photographer didn't want to take pictures of my wedding. It wouldn't matter why they didn't want to. If they don't want to do it, I would prefer they didn't. I am sure you will counter with some "straight white male privilege" nonsense and that I don't understand oppression (because you can obvious sum up my entire life knowing nearly nothing about me because reasons) but I am consistent. I would not personally refuse to take pictures at a gay wedding if I did weddings but I support the right of service people to only take work they want to take. If you don't like that, it is your problem. And I will not apologize for feeling that way. So you can begin the retaliatory -isms that I am sure you will call me.

Fixed this for you. ? You already lost the debate because you are making it emotional. Logic is not predicated on emotion; it is based on a system of reasoning that must be consistent whether it makes you feel comfortable or not.

Fair enough. My question now is, how predictable is the grain structure based on the structure of the image? Is it something that could reliably be done using a computer algorithm? Or is the process still inherently random in that the darker images have larger grain than the lighter images but the size of the grains are not reasonably consistent from one image to another? I ask this because I am trying to determine if something like Dehancer can be relied upon to be reasonably reliable to produce a grain structure that is superior to adding an overlay from Cinegrain, for example.

Maybe I misspoke. I don't need microscopically stable images. I just need something much better than I have gotten from CP16. I imagine what worked for Hollywood for as long as it has is good for me. And your footage looks fine as far as I can tell. But I have not gotten anywhere close with the CP16 which is (one reason) why I am done with the platform. Too many issues to deal with and too many compromises when many other alternatives (digital or film) exist if I save my coins.

Surely adding expletives to your statement makes it much more persuasive. ?

I am not arguing that you are correct in this. However, even with grain overlays on digital images, it still seems to be the case that grain over dark areas isnt noticeable as much as it is in highlights. So, from a practical standpoint, how much difference does this have when viewing?

You do realize that using isolated incidence of truth is how prejudice happens, right? The irony of your logic is that it is the same logic that leads to the type of bigotry that you claim to be against. Let me give you another example that I have heard that uses your logic: "Black people make up 50% of the prison population despite being only 13-14% of the population. Therefore, black people are criminals". I hope now that you can see the flaw in your reasoning?

Even if that were true, that is a ridiculously simplistic argument. "Because (member of set) X was formed due to Y, (every member of) X is always formed based on Y." Logic not even once. Learn how logic is formulated before you resort to rudimentary rhetoric.

Look, I am trying to be polite with you. I recommend you drop it.