Associates Central

Denver Cutthroats

A subreddit dedicated to all things regarding the CHL hockey team the Denver Cutthroats

Amazon Echo | A voice command system that brings the Internet Of Things to your home

/AmazonEcho is a community centered around the Amazon Echo, or as we like to call her - Alexa. Alexa is designed around your voice. She's always on—just ask for information, music, news, weather, and more. She's also an expertly-tuned speaker that can fill any room with immersive sound.

Dell Technologies

The unofficial subreddit for Dell Technologies

How long until I can use my affiliate home page?

About a week and a half - two weeks ago, I became a twitch affiliate. However, when I go to my dashboard and try to go to my affiliate homepage, it says they're still setting it up. How long does the setup usually take?
submitted by kamilkoziol to Twitch [link] [comments]

Portland Volunteer Opportunity Compendium

I love volunteering, volunteerism and helping other people find volunteer opportunities, however, I've noticed this question seems to come up a couple of times a week and that it elicits pretty much the same responses. Please submit organizations that need volunteers, organizations that coordinate volunteers and sites that aggregate opportunities. I think a very short summation would be helpful. Perhaps this could go to the sidebar or I could host it on my site.
Here's my contribution:
Organizations that need volunteers
Volunteer Coordinators
Volunteer Listings
Comment Additions
submitted by shamann00dle to Portland [link] [comments]

Twitch Affiliate 2-step button redirects to home page?

Trying to set up 2FA for my affiliate status,
But the button in the tab that says "Set Up 2FA" just redirects to
any idea how i can fix this?
EDIT: Works now! Thanks!
submitted by KingCeryn to Twitch [link] [comments]

A PC-User's Purchase "Guide" (it's not...just the ramblings of an idiot) to High Quality Audio on your system.

Hello friends, today I'd like to talk about an aspect of our glorious systems that get overlooked a lot: our audio experience on our battlestations. Thanks to paoper for formatting. Again disclaimer that I am an idiot, so take this post with a grain of salt. Better info and more accurate info from people way more knowledgeable than I am is readily available from /audiophile /budgetaudiophile and /headphones, this is just a start-up guide for the beginner.
NOTE: The monster I gave birth to has become too long. I felt that instead of a short list of things to order, I needed to give context as high fidelity is really all about what sound is like in your experience. Also a fun read if you are interested. Feel free to skip to the actual list (ctrl+f active speakers, passive speakers, headphones, subwoofer, amplifier)!
I have limited the price range of the products, because this is after all just food for thought and not even a proper guide; real audio purchases will require elbow-grease and research from your end to see if the product's sound signature will match your preferences in music and sound. If your product is not here, do not worry. I have put in products that I have had experience with and those that were recommended by multiple reviewers I hold in high regard (with the exception of a 2.1 system you will see later), and I had to consider the endless number of headphones/speakers vs the ones that are worth your hard-earned cash (and products vs how they compare to my current setup which includes both "high-end" and budget options).


I've been building systems for myself and others since I randomly took a buildapc course in middle school (currently 28) and enjoy music very much (I grew up on linkin park, dre, biggie smalls, 3 6 mafia, tupac, ac/dc, red hot chilli peppers am fond of electro and dubstep and various genres of music). I have 2 decades of experience playing saxophone, clarinet, and the electric guitar, and have performed in jazz bands, rock bands, and an orchestra. My ear is highly trained from raw musical performance and not just listening to speakers from home, as well as having the nuance to differentiate between good speakers. I have owned many many forms of audio gear (instruments, speakers, headphones, studio monitors).

So wtf is this?

So occasionally while answering questions on this subreddit (mainly on why new builder's systems aren't posting, or what components they should get, or just mourning with fellow builders for systems that have passed on as well as celebrating the birth of new systems and fellow pc builders who take their rite of passage of building their own system with their own two hands) I would come across the occasional "what speakers/headphones are best under $xx" and with the state of pc products being "gaming rgb ultimate series XLR" or w/e, it's hard to discern what audio products are actually worth your money. Note that if you are using just "good enough" cheap speakers, any of the speakers/headphones on this list will blow your mind away. Get ready to enter a new world of audio.

Why should I bother getting better speakers/headphones?

I have owned $20 logitech speakers, I currently own $1500 speakers. I have owned varying levels of headphones. The first half-decent (to my standards) speakers I had was a hand me down stereo set from an uncle. This thing was massive, but this thing was good. It's difficult to explain to you the sensation of music enveloping you with great speakers. Speakers are meant to reproduce sound, as in the sound of the instruments in the song. So great speakers and headphones can literally make you FEEL the music like at a rave or a concert or performance in the comfort of your home. This is why Home Theaters were so popular in the 80s/90s.
Upgrading will GREATLY enhance your music, netflix and gaming experience. In fact with passive bookshelf speakers, you can not only use them for your desktop setup, but also chuck them together with a tv and you've got a fine starter home theater system in your hands. You can even upgrade down the line incrementally, one speaker at a time, to a 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7.2 Dolby Atmos Home Theater Setup where your movies make you feel like your in SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I currently live in a small apartment with my TV right next to my battlestation, and when i want to sit down on my couch and watch TV, I simply move 1 speaker from my desk to next to my TV, turn my AVR on and I have an easy 5.1 home theater in my tiny apartment. Move the speaker, revert back to 2.1 (or 5.1 if i choose to but i dont because of badspeaker placement when I'm sitting at my desk) amazingness at my battlestation. Consider this an investment into massively improving your experience of playing video games, watching netflix, or listening to music. You think those 4k graphics and ULTRAWIDE monitor is giving you more immersion in your game? Shit...having great speakers or headphones can make you feel like you're IN NORMANDY BEACH DURING THE FUCKING LANDINGS

General considerations (or feel free to just skip ahead to the list)

Now, I totally understand using simple logitech speakers due to budget/space/easy-access from best buy or not knowing about the wider audio world. So I am here today to give you a perspective on what audio components are TRULY worth your hard-earned cash. I have owned $20 logitech speakers in college, I have owned guitar amps as well as studio monitors/other speakers ranging from $100-$1500. Do know that all of this information is readily available in /BudgetAudiophile /audiophile and /headphones . I am merely condensing all of it into a single list, and attempt to sort of explain it to the pc builders, or just an idiot rambling.
If you would like more information on specific speakers, I would check out reviewers on youtube like zerofidelity, steve guttenberg, nextbigthing (nbt) studios, and thomas and stereo. For headphones, metal751, innerfidelity, Ishca's written reviews, DMS.
Z reviews is okay and he reviews everything from amps and dacs to speakers and headphones, but he gives 90% of his products good reviews, and has affiliate links to every single product he you see where my dislike of him as a reviewer comes from. He is still an expert audiophile , he just chooses to not use his knowledge and ramble on in his videos, plus the shilling. Great place to start for audiophiles, as he is still a professional. I just think many move on to other reviewers.
Also with speakers, speaker placement is extremely important. Get those speakers off your desk and the woofers/tweeters to your ear level NO MATTER THE COST. Stack boxes/books, buy speaker stands/isolation pads from amazon, at worst buy yoga blocks from amazon. Put your speakers on them, get ready for even better audio.
General rule of thumb: dont buy HiFi at msrp. There are ALWAYS deals on speakers/headphones to take advantage of at any given time (massdrop for headphones, parts-express, accessories4less, crutchfield, adorama, Sweetwater, guitar center, etc). Speakers will get cheaper over time as manufacturers have to make room for new products/refreshes of the same models just as with headphones. If theres a particular headphone model you want, check to see if massdrop has it (website where users of the website decide what niche products the website will mass order, and both the website and you the users get reduced pricing).
Now this list is just simple guide. Obviously for $150 budget, theres probably like 10 different speakers to choose from. You will catch me repeat this many many times but sound is subjective, I don't know what genres of music you enjoy and what sound signatures in headphones/speakers you would prefer (warm sounds? bright? aggressively forward? laid back sound signature? importance of clarity vs bass?) So consider this list with a grain of salt, as this is after all, the ramblings of an idiot on reddit.


So I will be splitting this list into 4 categories:
And before I start, bass depth and low end does not fucking equal bad boomy bass. I absolutely detest low quality boomy bass like in Beats headphones and general "gaming speakers" or w/e. Also the budetaudiophile starter package is the dayton audio b652 + mini amp combo from parts-express. All the speakers that were considered were basically compared to the b652 before making it on here (and whether they justified the price bump over the b652)

Active vs. Passive (crude explanation)

So when a speaker plays music from your pc, the audio is processed by the audio card on your motherboard, which is then sent to the amplifier where the signal is amplified, and then finally is sent to be played on your speakers. Active speakers like logitech speakers that have a power cable running from the speakers directly to the wall socket have built-in amplifiers to power the speakers, whereas passive speakers require a separate amplifier to amplify the audio signal and feed the speakers power. Active vs passive, no real difference as both types of speakers will have good audio quality depending on how they are made and which ones you buy, but in the ultra budget section of speakers (under $300) actives tend to be cheaper than their passive counter parts. This is due to the manufacturer cutting corners elsewhere.
Take for instance the Micca MB42X passive speakers($90) which also have a brother, the Micca PB42X ($120) powered speakers. Same exact speaker, but built in amp vs the amp you buy. Obviously the mb42x will sound marginally better purely from the virtue that the amplifier is not inside the goddamn box. But the mb42x + amp + speaker wire will probably cost you anywhere from basic $130 to $200 with difference in amplifier and whether you use bare speaker wire or banana plugs/cables. Cabling aesthetics and management will be greatly affected, with sound quality affected to a lesser degree, or more (but at what cost?). Amp choice to be explained later.
Now generally speakers should be recommended based on your music/audio preferences and tastes as speakers and in a larger part, speaker brands will have their own unique sound signatures that some will love and others will hate as sound is such a subjective experience. But since this is meant to cater to a wide audience, note that my list is not the ALL inclusive, and again is only the ramblings of an idiot.


If you want to add bluetooth capabilities to your wires active or passive speakers, simply buy the esinkin W29 wireless bluetooth module, plug your speakers in, connect to your bluetooth on pc/phone/w/e, enjoy.


Simply connect to your PC or TV via 3.5mm (or the occasional usb).
Note: you may experience a hissing with active speakers that may annoy you to no end even up to the $400 mark. This is a result of the amplifier being built in to the speaker in close proximity, as well as sometimes the manufacturer cutting corners elsewhere. Passive speakers do not have this unless you buy a really shitty amp. Note that while bigger woofer size does not necessarily indicate better quality/bass, this does more often than not seem to be the case as manufacturers put bigger woofers on the higher stepup model.
Note that while I have included 2.1 systems here, I would always recommend you get good bookshelves first, save up money and buy a subwoofer separate.

Example options


These speakers will require you to buy a separate amplifier, as well as separate cables. But the passive route allows you to have a modular audio system that allows you to upgrade parts as you go along in your life (yes I said life for once you dip your toes into high fidelity, you will get hooked onto a great lifelong journey searching for the perfect setup), or even just add parts in altogether (like having a miniamp on your desk for your passive speakers, having a separate dac or bluetooth module for your speakers so you can connect the passive speakers via USB or bluetooth wirelessly, stacked on top of a headphone dac/amp combo, stacked on top of a preamp, etc). Amplifier list to follow later.
Passive speaker specs to pay attention to will be their impedance (measured in ohms) and their sensitivity (measured in xx db/1w/1m). Speaker ratings in wattage are measurements of how much power can be driven to them (higher watts, higher volume...once again crude explanation). A 20 watt x 2 channel amp (measured in 4 ohms) is enough to power 4 and 6 ohm speakers rated at 100 watts to moderate/decently loud listening levels on your desktop. Now the sensitivity thing. A speaker with a rating of 85db/1m/1w means it will produce 85 decibels of noise at 1 meter with 1 watt of power. Now this not make the same speaker go up to 90 decibels may require 10 or 15 watts of power depending on other variables. Depending on how loudly you play your music and what impedance/sensitivity your speakers have will result in your choice of amplifiers. More on this later.
The thing about passive bookshelf speakers are that you can use them in your desktop setup, AND with your TV as a legitimate starter 2.1 home theater setup (which you can upgrade to 3.1, and then 5.1/5.2, just buy a used receiver from craigslist for 50 bucks, ez)

What you will need for passive setup:

Note that passive speakers and amp require you to purchase speaker wire separately (fairly cheap) and strip them (youtube video will guide you, very easy). Or if you like clean cable management and easy setups, banana plug cables from amazon will set you straight, and while these banana plugs and cable are nice and PURELY OPTIONAL, they will add up in cost as your buy more of them for frankenstein 2.1 cabling. Also a 3.5mm to rca cable will be required. The connection will be your pc -> 3.5mm->rca->amp->speaker wire-> speaker wire->speaker. (replace speaker wire with banana plug if going that route). Subwoofer connection will be explained in subwoofer section.

Example options


Okay here is where we need to get into specific numbers. Active speakers have built-in amplifiers so they are exempt. But passive speakers will require separate amps and so you will need to pay attention to certain specs. In speakers you will need to pay attention to their impedance (measured in ohms) and their sensitivity (measured in xx db/1m/1w). The typical mini amplifier will be class D (small form factor amps for desktop use) and their wattage per channel will be usually expressed in 4ohms. Take for instance the popular SMSL SA50. This is an amp that delivers 50 watts to its 2 channels, rated at 4 ohms. Speakers will have impedance of 4, 6, or 8 ohms usually. 50 watts at 4 ohms can be 25 watts at 8 ohms, but is probably more like 20 watts at 8 ohms, refer to product specs for specific wattage ratings at specific ohms. Speakers with high sensitivity (85-95 db/1w/1m) that have 6 ohm impedance are easier to drive with lower wattage.
But here's the thing, an the smsl sa50 will not deliver 50 CLEAN watts. Somewhere in the 30-40w range distortion will start to appear. But for reference, 30 clean watts is enough to drive sony cs5s to uncomfortably loud levels in an apartment (the whole apt, not just your room) so listening on your desktop, you only really need 10-15 clean watts (only after turning up your preamp input to maximum volume, which in this case is your youtube/windows10 volume level). Do note that if you have the space, a used $60 AV Receiver that will just shit out watts and have 5.1 surround will be the best, but these things are massive.

Example options

If you need more watts than the AD18, you're gonna need to get a class a/b amp that just shits out watts for cheap, or get a used av receiver. If you want a new one, the best budget option is the DENON AVR-S540BT 5.2 channel AVR from accessories4less.


Good subwoofers are expensive, and cheap subwoofers will hurt your listening experience rather than improve it (muddy boomy shitty bass). Your best bet may be to simply find a used subwoofer from craigslist or offerup, just dont get the polk audio PSW10, this is a very common sub you see on the 2nd hand market, because it is a shitty sub and so people get rid of it. Now as to whether you need a subwoofer. If you are in a dorm, don't get a subwoofer. Because.... if you live in a dorm, do not get a fucking subwoofer. Now if you live in a small apartment, fear not, proper subwoofer management will save you noise complaints. A good subwoofer will produce good quality low end you can hear and feel without having to turn up the volume. You want to look at the subwoofer's lowest frequency it can go to. That will show you how "tight" the bass will be. Now, low volume levels on a good sub will produce that bass for you without vibrating your walls (though subwoofer and speaker isolation as well as PLACEMENT (refer to the sub-crawl) will do more for getting the most sound out of your speakers without having to turn up the volume....and just turn off the sub after a reasonable time)
Now as to how to add a subwoofer to your system will depend on what setup you have and the available connections. If your speakers or amplifier has a subwoofer output, simply connect that to your subwoofer, set the crossover freuency (the frequency at which the subwoofer will start making sound) to 80hz, or lower depending on how low of a frequency our bookshelves can go down to.
If your speakers/amp do not have a subwoofer out, you will need to find a subwoofer that has high level speaker inputs. You will need to connect your bookshelves to the speaker outputs on the subwoofer via speaker wire/banana plugs, and then run speaker wire/banana plugs from the subwoofer input to your amplifier, ending with rca to 3.5mm connection to your pc.

Example options


Okay, I keep saying headphones and not headsets right. But you ask, Kilroy, you're an idiot. You're posting on buildapc for PC gamers and builders but you're talking headphones and not headsets. How idiotic are you? Pretty big, but friends hear me out. Now I used to live in South Korea, where PC Bangs (internet cafes) set the nation's standards for computers. All the places had to get the best bang for the buck pc gear to stay in business and remain competitive (all 100 computers at these places had like i5-6600k and gtx 1080 in 2015 or something I don't remember, along with mechanical BLUE SWITCH FUCCCCCCKKKKKKKK (imagine 100 blue switch keyboards being smashed on in a small underground area in Seoul) keyboards and decent headsets.
So I have tried MANY MANY different headsets, here is my conclusion. Just get proper headphones and get either get an antlion modmic, or V-MODA Boompro mic both available on amazon. (short list of mics later) or get proper headphones and usb mic. Okay, I have seen the headphone recommendation list, and the only one I would give any (if at all) weight to in the usual pc websites that our subreddit goes to, is the list from rtings. These guys mainly measure monitors and tvs (very well might i add) but the writer for their audio section is lacking it seems.
Please dont get Astro AXX headphones or corsair rgb xxxxxx w/e. Please for the love of god, take your good hard earned cash and get yourself a NICE pair of cans my fellow PC users. The mic part is secondary as GOOD headphones will forever change your PC using and music listening experience FOREVER
The TWO EXCEPTIONS that I have observed to this rule are the Hyperx Clouds and Cooler Master mh751/752.

Example options

Now obviously, there's other choices. A metric fuck load of them. But I had to account for how much you should be paying (price range) for upgrades in sound quality and performance.

Example options (Wireless headsets)

Okay. Wireless headsets, now let's think why do you need a wireless headset? Do you want to walk around your house while on discord? Maybe you want to keep the headset on while having to afk real quick for a smoke break or whatnot.

HEADPHONE AMP/DAC (digital to analogue converter)

My knowledge/experience with headphone amps and dacs are...extremely lacking, I'm more of a speaker guy. But, here is a list for you guys.


Other mics? Yes, but are they worth the extra $$ for marginally better audio recording? You decide.

Concluding remarks

Cool. Stay safe in these dark times brothers. Have a glorious day.
submitted by Kilroy1311 to buildapc [link] [comments]

Unemployed during COVID, my partner is at risk, need at home job.

(pardon my bitterness + frustration) I've been scouring fucking indeed for the past week or so. Applied to a few. But over all most of the listings SUCK. Most of them just have a toxic work structure. "make sure you can type 25wpm" "meet xyz goals" "use two monitors" Like I know what overworking looks like. And I refuse to deal with another company that will hold my job over me because of some arbitrary "goals"
I just need a simple remote job. You know incase our lovely govt decides we DONT need another round of stimulus. Please help.
And Thank you <3
submitted by MamaAkina to WorkOnline [link] [comments]

Why should disassociate themselves from Guinness World Records

For many years, Guinness World Records exclusively partnered with Twin Galaxies as its authority on video gaming achievements. For all its flaws, at one time TG was the sole major scorekeeping organization. In 2017, Guinness broadened their scorekeeping affiliations, adding material from speedrunning hub to their annual "Gamer's Edition" of the Guinness World Records book. More recently, started a new collaboration with Guinness, offering official Guinness world records to anyone who could complete specific challenges in Super Mario Odyssey, God of War, and Minecraft. As Guinness put it, "[W]e're now taking our partnership with to the next level by working directly with moderators from their community to create some totally new and unique GWR speedrun challenges."
But an issue has come up recently, one that I think deserves a good long look. Everyone heard this bit of news last week, but not everyone is aware of all the underlying ramifications, which when spelled out are actually quite appalling. I think it's worth reevaluating whether this relationship between SRC and Guinness is actually worth maintaining, either from the perspective of the speedrunning community at large, or from the perspective of administration themselves.
I would love to say I had a long list of reasons for this post. I mean, we could throw in last month's brouhaha over Guinness falsely copyright striking several speedrunners' videos, or we could talk about Guinness' affinity for oppressive autocratic regimes, if it really makes a difference. But truthfully, I'm here today to talk about Guinness' recent decision to restore illegitimately claimed world records by longtime video game cheater, Billy Mitchell. But don't think for a moment this is just one minor grievance.
As you'll see, this post is about a lot more than just "Billy Mitchell is a cheater," but let's start there. For the last two years, even after the conclusion of the score dispute, I've been researching the Billy Mitchell case. I could talk all day about the mountain of evidence proving Billy Mitchell cheated. (No, no. Literally, all day.) But for right now, if anyone wants, we'll do a short recap.
In February 2018, Jeremy Young, a moderator at Donkey Kong Forum, published the result of an investigation into three historical Billy Mitchell performances, which were claimed to be "direct feeds" from Donkey Kong arcade cabinets. It turns out, when drawing game boards to the screen, MAME produces image frames which are noticeably different from what genuine arcade produces. And guess what! Billy's tapes didn't match arcade, and were an exact match for MAME. (MAME is legal of course, but at Twin Galaxies is listed separately, with special verification to prohibit cheating.) The circumstances around Billy's scores had always been fishy (and remain so), but this MAME evidence was the smoking gun. These "MAME signatures" weren't incidental differences, but rather byproducts of the fact that MAME draws images to the screen in a fundamentally different manner. Rigorous testing by a number of parties at Twin Galaxies and elsewhere concluded Billy's tapes could not have originated from authentic arcade hardware as claimed. To this day, neither Billy nor anyone else has been able to explain why three different tapes of Billy's, allegedly produced on three different Donkey Kong machines with different capture setups several years apart, all show dozens upon dozens of MAME signatures, and exactly zero arcade signatures, nor has anyone been able to replicate the phenomenon, nor has anyone been able to show why this phenomenon apparently happened to only Billy Mitchell and not literally anyone else ever.
For over a year after the dispute closed, Billy promised his exonerating evidence was on its way. In September 2019, this evidence was finally delivered, along with an explicit legal threat to Twin Galaxies and to Guinness, threatening legal action if they did not reinstate his scores (which Twin Galaxies, under the ownership of Jace Hall, has refused to do). Billy's evidence packet was an exercise in throwing as much at the wall as possible, and while some passersby were convinced by Billy's smoke-and-mirrors approach, for those of us who followed the dispute and understood the core evidence, this evidence packet was a massive flop. "Hey look, I used to own a real Donkey Kong circuit board! I have shipping receipts for it!" Billy claimed the tapes weren't his while simultaneously going to great lengths to prove it was his legit game play on those tapes after all. Billy continued to rely on a wacky long-debunked theory that a guy named Dwayne Richard snuck into peoples' homes, took Billy's real tapes, and either swapped them all with perfect MAME forgeries, or used some sort of magic tool to draw MAME signatures all over Billy's VHS tapes. (Dwayne would have needed a time machine to pull off this preposterous caper, and even then, there's no way he could have affected a third tape in 2010, which also showed MAME signatures, and which stayed strictly in Billy's possession as he presented it, which Billy seems to conveniently forget about.) But don't worry. Billy did have several friends of his sign witness statements testifying that he's a really good guy and that he totally did get these scores and didn't cheat.
On Thursday, June 18, Guinness released a video (seen above) and a written statement, announcing they had reversed their previous decision to strike Billy Mitchell from their record books. Guinness cited "compelling new evidence", including "a re-examination of the records in question and the emergence of key eyewitness and expert testimonials". Craig Glenday, in the video announcement, said this decision involved "reviewing both the existing evidence, and newly sourced eyewitness testimony, plus some new expert game play analyses and hardware verification". (I'll get more into this in a moment, but they're referring to Billy's September 2019 evidence packet - the one that had this cover sheet. There is no "new" evidence at play, simply "newer" material than was presented during the original score dispute in 2018.) Glenday finally added, "In cases such as this, where there is debate, we would typically defer to the original, contemporaneous adjudication, and this is the case here."
The first thing one should notice is that no particular piece of evidence is presented or emphasized. What exactly was the most compelling piece of new evidence? Whose eyewitness statements were instrumental in this decision? In the Twin Galaxies dispute thread, everything was made public and transparent. We knew what the evidence was, and what was being discussed and considered. Things were openly tested and verified. If you did claim to find a way to produce MAME signatures with arcade, you had to explain how you did it, and the process had to be replicable. With Guinness, we are given only a final decision.
Speaking of witness statements, how exactly did Guinness resolve glaring discrepancies in Billy's and his friends' stories? In 2018, Billy's technician, Rob Childs, boasted of his direct feed setup, and how it would prove Billy's innocence. So confident was he that he offered to donate $5000 to charity on behalf of anyone who could come into his shop and prove him wrong. Of course, when it came time for witness statements the following year, Mr. Childs suddenly had almost nothing to do with the direct feed setup (page 43 here), and of course the people who did create the setup, who would have the answers to these questions, have all vanished into the ether. And then of course, there's literally Todd Rogers. How did Guinness reconcile Todd being the referee to verify Billy's scores with him also having been thoroughly discredited, with even Guinness themselves no longer recognizing his old scores? How did they reconcile new witness statements claiming the 2010 score was arranged ahead of time with Todd's account that he just happened to be in the area that day?
Guinness mentions "hardware verification". Make no mistake, this didn't involve Guinness doing actual hardware tests of their own, but rather looking at Billy's shipping receipts for a DK board and saying "Yup, those do indeed look like shipping receipts." How did Guinness resolve these receipts and witness statements with the fact that the tapes that were produced and submitted could not have originated from an authentic Donkey Kong arcade cabinet as claimed? Did they ever find any explanation for the MAME signatures, seen across three different claimed performances allegedly done on three different machines years apart? Did they make any attempt at all to resolve this?
Also, there's this whole fake equivalence thing. "Gosh, the cheater hasn't confessed. As long as there's 'debate', I guess we can't do anything until both parties agree." Billy Mitchell will take his lies to his grave. He will always have some new round of evidence and witness statements to sucker people with. Heck, Todd Rogers still maintains his innocence. Maybe Guinness should send Todd a new certificate for that 5.51 on Dragster? It was, after all, verified by a major game publisher using the "contemporaneous adjudication" standards at the time. Is that really going to be Guinness' standard?
I could go on, but I do want to make one last point about how ridiculous Guinness' decision was. This is what makes this so utterly preposterous to me. Guinness re-awarded Billy Mitchell the world record for "First gamer to score one million points on Donkey Kong" for his bogus 1.047m score, basing their decision on the September 2019 evidence packet where, it just so happens, both Billy Mitchell and Walter Day testify (page 17 here and page 5 here) that the 1.047m score was for "entertainment purposes only" and was never intended as an official submission. (Yes, that score you saw in King of Kong, with Walter and Billy on the phone? Billy now says Robert Mruczek stole the tape shown at Funspot - a claim we can prove was a lie - and entered the score against poor Billy's wishes. And somehow, Billy never found the time to object to this "entertainment purposes only" score being on the scoreboard - understandably I guess as he was too busy promoting it as a verified world record.) Never mind, for the moment, that we have previous statements from both of them stating the exact opposite. But no, this is what they're now claiming, in their submission to Guinness. The 1.047m didn't count.
The 1.047m tape was submitted in 2005. (Billy claims he "achieved" it in 2004, but who knows?) Billy's next one million point submission (also fake) was in 2007. Problem is, Steve Wiebe had a fully verified one million point submission in 2006. So if Billy's 2004/5 score doesn't count........... how on earth does he have the first million?
I described this perplexing proposal back in dispute thread, mockingly playing the part of Walter Day giving his new-at-the-time testimony:
"Billy totally didn't submit the tape, and I only entered it as a stunt, but he still had the first million on DK, because I did enter it, but I didn't, because it wasn't submitted, but you should reinstate first million on DK anyway, because it was verified, and it could only be verified because he submitted it, but he didn't submit it, and I didn't enter it, even though I did, but I really didn't, but still, nobody else out there got the first million, because Billy got it first, because we verified it, even though he didn't submit it, because he only does his world records live and in person, but it really was the world record, because we did enter it, even though we also didn't, so he still should get credit, and not the other guy."
Guinness apparently didn't resolve any of this, and just looked the other way. "Sure, first one million, whatever you say."
Oh, and on top of that, Guinness got the date wrong.
This is fun and all, jumping back on the "Fuck Billy Mitchell" train for another sweet ride. But that by itself isn't worth writing this post. Here's where we get a bit serious. The implications laid out below are what deserve some frank consideration.
First, Guinness' statement was coordinated with a simultaneous statement from Billy Mitchell himself, on Twitter. Billy proclaimed, "After its own fair and unbiased investigation, Guinness World Records has announced the reinstatement of my Pac-Man and Donkey Kong records, effective immediately."
In this announcement, what may have gone unnoticed was an additional video, posted to Billy Mitchell's own YouTube channel (a channel which he has renamed "King of Kong"). This video, filmed in the same arcade setting as his portion of the Guinness video and featuring an opening card reading "Billy Mitchell Official Statement", lasted four minutes and 35 seconds, with the vast majority of that time featuring Billy speaking to the camera. This video was accessible here:
However, realizing he may have said too much, Billy soon set the video to private. Obviously I can't reupload his proprietary video, but I have transcribed the relevant uninterrupted portion as follows:
I've waited a long time for this announcement. Today, June 18, 2020, Guinness World Records has announced the unanimous decision to reinstate all of my world record scores, from 1982 to present day. This is not a decision they came to quickly. It was a long investigation, substantial due diligence, and it's that that I'd like to talk to you about here today.
My first communication on this with Guinness World Records was September, 2019. They were very alarmed at the situation. Guinness World Records, as the most respected world record keeping authority in the world, decided it needed to take its own look into the situation, conduct its own due diligence, and reach its own conclusion.
Over the next few months, the lines of communication remained open and active. In December, 2019, we received an email with their conclusions - to reinstate all of my world records, from 1982 to present day.
There's a lot to unpack in this revelation, so let's take it piece-by-piece.
First of all, he says his first communication with Guinness was September, 2019, well over a year after the dispute conclusion. The evidence packet was sent to both Twin Galaxies and Guinness on September 9, 2019, which as said before, came with a legal threat letter making their terms very clear:
Each corporation has a 14-day deadline to review the information and issue the retraction, or we will resort to legal recourse, our final option.
Unless we are to believe there was some prior communication between Sept. 1-8, which quickly escalated to legal threats days later, that means Billy's threat was his first communication with Guinness. He didn't present evidence and ask that it be weighed fairly - which he could have done in the actual TG score dispute at any time. He opened with the threat. So how seriously are we to take Guinness' investigation when it's done under an explicit legal threat? And how exactly does this make them "unbiased"?
*points gun at bystander* "Tell them I didn't do it!"
"Uhhh.... I guess he didn't do it?"
"As you can see, this fair and impartial witness did their own thorough investigation, and has concluded that I am innocent of all charges."
In his Sept. 2019 evidence packet, Billy labels anyone critical of him (based on either evidence or experience) as biased or of having some kind of personal vendetta against him. So it's not really a surprise that Billy is going to alternatively tout the investigative abilities of anyone who agrees with him, even if their "investigation" consisted only of "Okay, fine, please don't sue us." Unlike Twin Galaxies and various other participants in the 2018 score dispute, Guinness' "investigation" probably didn't involve coming within a mile of an actual Donkey Kong cabinet.
But this "long investigation"? This "substantial due diligence"? Interesting thing about that: I've asked around, and I have yet to find anyone who would advocate the "Billy is guilty" position who was sought for input into this "investigation" by Guinness. I've asked Jeremy Young, moderator at Donkey Kong Forum and initial publisher of the MAME evidence (and recent lawsuit target of Billy Mitchell). Guinness did not contact him for input into their "investigation". I've asked J.C. Harrist, administrator at DKF (and another recent Billy lawsuit target). Guinness did not contact him. Tanner Fokkens, a.k.a. "expandedidea", who rehosted the bogus tapes for examination and who contributed significantly to the body of evidence. Guinness did not contact him. For my part, while I'm not particularly important in my own right, I have written extensively on the topic, and have already addressed each element of Billy's evidence submission worth discussing. Guinness did not reach out to me for input into their investigation - even though Jace Hall and Twin Galaxies did. It certainly doesn't seem Guinness took what I or many others have written into consideration. Given that I care about the integrity of competitive video gaming and its history, I would've been happy to answer any of Guinness' questions to the best of my ability at no charge.
This "investigation" is already lacking enough, especially for an organization which has in the past openly acknowledged the need to farm out video game adjudication to the experts. But it gets even more troubling when you take into consideration Billy's other remark:
Over the next few months, the lines of communication remained open and active.
So Guinness didn't reach out to the people who published the damning evidence, and who could elaborate on its context and address any concerns. But they did keep constant contact with Billy and his people, exclusively?
I wonder whose idea that was.
There was obviously a lot of collaboration between Guinness and Billy leading up to their announcement. They produced a video together. They had their statements prepared and ready to go. One might ask, exactly how far did this collaboration go?
Look back to Billy's quotes above. According to him, he was notified of Guinness' decision in December.
Sooooooo why are we hearing about this now? When Twin Galaxies ruled on the Dragster dispute, Todd's scores were gone by the next day. When Twin Galaxies ruled on this score dispute in April 2018, Billy's scores were gone by the next day. But this time, they wait six months? What on earth possessed them to do that?
I suppose we can't say for sure, but I'll tell you one thing: The next hearing in the Billy Mitchell v. Twin Galaxies case is July 6. The hearing is to rule on Twin Galaxies' anti-SLAPP motion. This is in reference to a law that allows defendants (such as Jace Hall) to get frivolous lawsuits which are only intended to stifle free speech (such as Billy Mitchell's meritless lawsuit against TG) dismissed before trial. But to do that, you basically have to show the suit has no merit. Right now is the home stretch for filings for that hearing, where this poor judge, whose closest experience to video games is probably watching their grandkids play Fortnite, is going to have to review the facts and decide if these video game nerds have a case against each other. Given the already superficial approach of Billy's defense to date, do you really think "Guinness did their own investigation and they reinstated my records" isn't going to factor heavily into Billy's filings against the anti-SLAPP motion? Or, for that matter, his public relations campaign?
Exactly what possessed Guinness to withhold their announcement for months, blindsiding everyone right as court proceedings are about to start?
I guess it's time to stop beating around the bush on this: Is Guinness World Records intentionally assisting a proven cheater in his lawsuit against another video gaming recordkeeper?
If so, the implications are horrifying, and would merit some serious reconsideration of collaboration, for, for Twin Galaxies, or any other competitive gaming adjudicator.
Now, I'm willing to believe, perhaps, that Guinness isn't consciously approaching this situation in that fashion (although at this point, that's not even a given). They might not be thinking "Yeah, let's fuck Twin Galaxies up! Let's do it for Billy!" I'm willing to believe, perhaps, that Guinness simply got sweet-talked by Billy, then suckered into only listening to him and his friends, then duped into thinking anyone who doesn't fall for Billy's fairy-tale evidence is some conspiracy wacko, and then finally tricked into announcing their decision whenever Billy felt it appropriate. It would be pretty derelict of them, but Billy is charismatic and forceful, so I could maybe see that.
But can we seriously rule out the alternative? Can we truly say Guinness didn't know damn well what they were doing? That maybe they decided Billy Mitchell would be their better friend?
Even if you want to give Guinness the benefit of the doubt on this one, there's still no getting around the fact that Guinness was quite well aware of this lawsuit in progress against their longtime partner, Twin Galaxies. They could have issued a quiet, boilerplate retraction, or they could have withheld announcement altogether until this current civil action is resolved. But no, instead, as another scorekeeper is being sued, they chose to make a big show out of backing the litigant. They did a video with the guy, giving him this major platform and celebrating him with favorable "evidence" and favorable media. All over their big "investigation", which for all we know may have consisted of nothing more than Billy Mitchell handing them a wad of cash.
Look, I don't think it's really a secret that Guinness is a joke when it comes to video gaming adjudication. First, it doesn't seem Guinness ever really understood these score disputes in the first place, simply taking Twin Galaxies' conclusions (or whatever Guinness understood the conclusions to be) as gospel. In their printed 2019 Gamer's Edition (released summer 2018), when they chose to explain what happened with the Todd and Billy score disputes, they printed the following statement, suggesting that it was Billy's Pac-Man records (rather than his multiple Donkey Kong scores) which were accused of being fraudulent:
That's not all. They're now claiming the first million point game of Donkey Kong was "achieved by Billy Mitchell (USA), on 4 June 2005." They can put whatever date they want I guess, but for the record, that's the day Billy had his tape played at Funspot (as seen in King of Kong). Even if you believed the score was real, it was obviously "achieved" earlier than that.
It doesn't end there. Remember that current collaboration between and Guinness? That special ongoing Minecraft challenge they selected? Turns out that challenge is likely not even possible at all. (But hey, maybe that one's SRC's fault?) Say, remember Rodrigo Lopes? Rodrigo was a massive speedrun liar going back to the Speed Demos Archive days, typically posting videos of only the final portions of his runs as proof. Last year, Twin Galaxies tossed Rodrigo on his cheating butt for taunting everyone with his spliced Zelda tapes. Well, he may not be recognized by TG anymore, but he's still recognized with a Guinness World Record!
One could certainly understand if Guinness simply threw their hands in the air and said "We don't know. We can't decide this stuff. You gamers figure it out." Guinness' representatives themselves have said many times that they don't have the expertise in competitive video gaming to authoritatively make these determinations themselves, and that they rely on experts in the field to make these sorts of findings for them. But that doesn't excuse this. It's one thing for Guinness to be sort of half-assed in this one field (a field for which they have a yearly publication exclusively dedicated to), as long as they take seriously the recommendations of the experts in that field. But when they decide to go directly and boldly against the determinations of those experts - in this case, against both the true DK experts at Donkey Kong Forum and the open-evidence based dispute process at Twin Galaxies - then that really calls to question why these scoreboards would stamp their tacit endorsement on Guinness' decisions at all.
It would be easy to say that nothing "needs to be done" about Guinness and their foolishness. Truthfully, if they really want, Guinness can have their own laughingstock scoreboard, with Billy Mitchell, Todd Rogers, Rodrigo Lopes, Michael Damiani, Kevin Durden, Henning Blom, Rosie Ruiz, Mike Postle, Alex Bertoncini, and whoever else they feel like "honoring" for their "achievements". It's not the job of the video gaming community to prevent Guinness from embarrassing themselves. But, even assuming the best of intentions on their part, if Guinness is inclined to be swindled by some huckster in a suit with a flashy bag of tricks, if they're not willing to accept the evidence-based findings of the competitive video gaming community, or at the very least seek out that community for input into their deliberations, then frankly, why should they either expect or receive the endorsement of that community?
It's one thing for a scorekeeper to associate with Guinness when they're merely dysfunctional, when their blunders are simply a matter of correcting typos and updating them on which players have been outed as cheaters. But Guinness really screwed up this time. They didn't just let a cheater get by. They armed him. They knowingly assisted in his lawsuit against another scoreboard. They actively reinforced a culture of cheating held over from the old Twin Galaxies days, and in the process, hung a lot of people doing a lot of hard work out to dry. This can have a very chilling effect on scoreboard integrity efforts beyond Twin Galaxies or arcade high score chasing. I can already tell that, until and unless this is remedied, any time I explain the evidence against Billy Mitchell, I'll have to deal with answers of "wElL gUiNnEsS rEiNsTaTeD hIm aNd i tHiNk gUiNnEsS kNoWs mOrE aBoUt wOrLd rEcOrDs tHaN yOu dO."
Busting cheaters, while satisfying to watch and in some ways satisfying to do, can be dangerous work. You have to find clear evidence to make your case (while at the same time being careful not to inadvertently publish instruction manuals on how to get better at cheating). You have to dedicate a lot of time and headspace to the effort. (I would be playing Final Fantasy 5 right now if I wasn't writing this.) As in the case of Phantasy Star cheater Kevin Durden last year (who accused the moderators of fabricating evidence to frame him), you may also have to dedicate a lot of time and effort just to address the avalanche of lies and recriminations coming back your way. You may face copyright strikes for rehosting the evidence the cheater is trying to suppress. And of course, there's always the danger one of these cheaters takes the case to actual grown-up court, and tries to exact real world consequences as the price of your integrity. Yet all of this, the effort and the risk, is necessary to keep this sport clean.
I get it. No one wants to get sued. Certainly Guinness didn't want to get sued by Billy Mitchell, either for removing his scores or for their poorly reviewed printed statement about Pac-Man. But I can tell you one thing for sure: Billy Mitchell won't be the last cheater to take a scoreboard to court to try and force them to recognize his fraudulent achievements. If Billy Mitchell is able to browbeat Guinness World Records into recognizing his bogus scores, what hope is there if someone of equal access and resources decides to go after in the same fashion?
On that note, what would Guinness do in that event? Would Guinness appease the cheater right in the middle of a lawsuit against SRC? Would Guinness release a statement declaring "We looked into it, and we don't think got this right, but we won't tell you why"? Would Guinness do a high-five video with the cheater and root them on in their litigation?
But let's not kid ourselves. Guinness has lawyers. They certainly do have the resources to withstand petty legal action. They didn't just choose to roll over; they chose to roll over in epic fashion, right on top of the next defendant down the line. They gave a cheater his license. They revoked a world record from its rightful holder (Steve Wiebe). And they chose to make life more difficult for competitive gaming scorekeepers everywhere.
Now, we should be clear about something: Guinness World Records is a household name, far more than either or Twin Galaxies. Everyone has heard of Guinness World Records. SRC certainly gains public prestige from the arrangement. And I totally get that. But Guinness does gain from the arrangement as well. They are provided scores, and the associations with dedicated scoreboards give them legitimacy. Unless they want to hire their own video game adjudication division, or unless they decide they really don't care how little credibility their annual Gamer's Edition has, then they need this relationship, too. How serious would their video game records be if every score adjudicator was known to openly disassociate from them? It's not as if world record speedruns won't still be achieved. It's not as if people will stop speedrunning altogether. And it's not as if individual players couldn't still submit directly to Guinness if for whatever reason they did want their names alongside Billy Mitchell and Rodrigo Lopes. Guinness is not a benefactor here. With these actions, they may have shown that the dangers of associating with them outweigh the rewards.
In drafting up this post, I started with a more inquisitive headline: "Should disassociate themselves from Guinness World Records?" I didn't feel it was my place to make such a bold directive. I'm not a speedrun competitor. I once briefly held a few WRs on an old Atari 2600 game (a few of which were on uncontested tracks), and that's it. But in laying out the facts of the case, and fully absorbing the implications, the answer to my question became obvious to me. Sure, I may be a mere enthusiast, but it still matters to me that the achievements I watch and celebrate are legitimate, and not the forgeries of some fragile narcissist consumed with jealousy. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. From high score chasers to speedrunners, the reaction in the gaming community to last week's announcement was quite negative. I won't name names, but one well-known competitive gamer requested all their videos be taken down from Guinness' YouTube channel. Another well-known competitive gamer publicly removed "Guinness world record holder" from their bio. (I'll let them speak for themselves if they wish.)
I'm not looking to start a big angry crusade against in particular, nor am I suggesting anyone else do so. I am definitely NOT saying should be "cancelled" if they go about business as usual. I'm sure the good folks at SRC aren't suckered by Billy's "Gosh, I have no idea how this happened" act, and that there are probably many factors at play for them in whatever decision they make. I also get that this Billy Mitchell / Twin Galaxies stuff is not particularly even their fight, since Billy isn't a speedrunner. (Although, funny side story, Billy Mitchell did once aspire to be a speedrunner, before losing and deciding speedrunning was stupid and that being "first" was more important than being "fast".)
I'm not saying SRC must listen to little old me. I'm simply saying this is a thing they ought to do, that they would be smart to do - not for my sake, not necessarily for Donkey Kong Forum's or Twin Galaxies' sake, and not even necessarily for the sake of the speedrun community at large. Ultimately, the only reason they need is to do it is for their own sake. Because SRC has to deal with cheaters, too. And one day, they'll find themselves the target of a zealous litigating lunatic, who will seek to employ the power of the courts to force them to celebrate lies as facts, and to humiliate themselves and alienate all their subscribers in the process. And as they and their lawyers prepare their legal defense for court, they could turn to social media to discover a statement from Guinness, declaring "Well, we spoke at length with Mr. Cheater, and we looked at his special evidence, and we won't tell you exactly what it was, but we assure you it was very compelling, and since we definitely know what we're talking about better than these speedrun sites do, we have now chosen to award Mr. Cheater several more Guinness world records and to name him Video Game Champion of the Millennium." And on that day, the staff at should be prepared to say "Guinness has no idea what they're doing with video games, which was precisely why we cut ties with them years ago."
ETA: The day after this post, Jace hall published a recent retraction demand they received from Billy's lawyers, as well as a trove of legal filings, both submitted and received by TG. This provides added confirmation to many points made above.
The retraction letter, which only discusses Guinness' decision and nothing else, was sent June 18, the exact date of Guinness' announcement. This signifies yet another point of collaboration (unwitting or otherwise) between Guinness and Billy in the latter's attempts to threaten and sue a competitive scoreboard. The letter, written by Billy's lawyer, also makes a point to say "Guinness World Records evaluated the exact evidence which your client deliberately ignored during its original investigation and which was set out in the initial retraction demand". In other words, Guinness based their new decision based on the September 2019 evidence packet we've all seen. We're not being asked to believe in any "secret evidence" aside from the public record.
Billy's 41-page declaration (filed on Monday, June 22) significantly features Guinness' decision as well. Out of those 41 pages, not counting URLs, it features the word "Guinness" or the acronym "GWR" 28 times. Billy also reiterates the time frame discussed above, stating that he was notified of Guinness' decision on December 12, 2019. On the same day, Billy's lawyer filed a 20-page motion against TG's anti-SLAPP motion, featuring the word "Guinness" or the acronym "GWR" a total of 16 times (not counting the table of contents).
Also, there was this:
submitted by ersatz_cats to speedrun [link] [comments]

For all the fans who are disgusted by Bon Appetit’s leadership, we can take action to support BA’s BIPOC staff and contributors.

--Edit-- Since this post has gotten some attention, please consider donating to these organizations:
In addition, consider going to and ask your local government officials to reallocate police budgets towards education and social service programs.
—Edit 2— Adam Rapoport has stepped down, but there is much left to be done. Please stay unsubscribed from BA/CN content, and don’t back down until they take real concrete steps to fix their broken leadership, tear down their toxic company culture, and do right by Sohla and every other BIPOC employee.
—Edit 3— If you were going to donate to Reclaim The Block, please check out this post from them listing other great organizations to donate to instead. (Thank you IllustriousTruck)
—Edit 4— Sohla has been (rightfully) getting a lot of attention during this whole debacle, but major props to Hawa Hassan @hawa_22 for exposing more of BA’s horrible discriminatory business practices. Check out her upcoming cookbook In Bibi's Kitchen: The Recipes and Stories of Grandmothers from the Eight African Countries That Touch the Indian Ocean.
—Edit 5— A few days late with the update here but BA video lead Matt Duckor has resigned.
—Edit 6— Hunzi has been suspended from Condé Naste, “pending investigation.” Three employees came forward and expressed the belief that this is retribution for his social media posts that have been critical of CN.
submitted by Cayenne_West to bon_appetit [link] [comments]

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

With all of the recent discussion of the protests and riots following George Floyd's murder I thought it was worth remembering that this conversation has occurred before. Many objected to the tactics used by the Civil Rights movement with the same arguments and criticism that we hear today. I think they ring as hollow now as they did then. I think we could do well to read MLK's words and reflect on whether we want to be embracing the arguments that were so eloquently criticized here.
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.
I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.
Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.
But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.
When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.
In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.
I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.
I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"
Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.
There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.
Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.
It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
submitted by cstar1996 to moderatepolitics [link] [comments]

How would you go about monetizing a garden page?

I have a garden social media account with 80000 followers, but I have never been able to monetize it. Very few people have clicked through to buy products I have shared in my stories. I am thinking about making a website, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Should I even try to monetize gardening or should I treat it as just a fun social media page?
submitted by eturnol to Affiliatemarketing [link] [comments]

Case Study 1: Month 48. $4k/m.

Hi all,
Semi-regular commenter here: this has been a long time coming. I’ve been a 'Just Starter' for over 4 years. I figured it’s time to share my story, lessons learned, and try to open up some good discussion.
I know we've all been frustrated at the lack of original content on here (shout out to all the Case Study: Month 1 posts) so hopefully this gives you something to read. So, instead of Month 1, here's Month 48!


I originally found Humble’s first case studies not long after he posted them. I was already looking at ways to make money online, and was instantly hooked.
With my web developer friend we made a broad home site, and I started writing. Basically just doing best of lists of blenders, ice cream makers, etc. I went through a summer of productivity: getting up at 5.45am before my office job and blasting out writing on the daily.
1 year later, with around 50 posts, two pages struck gold and we peaked at $2,700 in a month from US Amazon affiliate income. These were seasonal pages and a July heatwave helped a ton. It quickly died back off in the winter.
After that summer, productivity nosedived (I got a girlfriend). But sporadically kept building the site. Our income never got back to that peak, but the next summer saw a few $2k months. That's when I started to think doing this full time was possible. My job had become badly managed, and I wanted to move away from the city. So despite the site still making peanuts most months, I quit my full time job on July 1st, 2019.

1 Year Later

This year has flown by so quickly. I wondered so much about what it would be like to do this full time, and now here we are. Here’s the year in summary:

Traffic & Earnings

The recent ‘explosion’ has been from the many informational posts I wrote after going full time. These are now finally maturing. Even with an established site it's still taking 3-6months for many of our posts to mature fully. Also we're still more summer focused than anything - still trying to get away from that.
Earnings: (Amazon rate cut was April 21st). These don’t include UK/Canada which run at around 10% of US income. I couldn't get our earnings from the start - Amazon only goes back 2 years.
Until 2020, earnings were entirely from Amazon’s affiliate programs. Recently we signed up to Ezoic, though we were getting sweet f all ($6.5/1000 sessions). In the last month we switched to Mediavine and it’s changed everything. We’re seeing $25/1000 sessions, currently bringing $70+ a day. This alone has almost offset the Amazon cuts.

Our Strategy

I want to touch on how we’ve built the site, since that's always what I'm most interested in when reading other studies. Ours is about as simple a setup as you can imagine.
Until I went full time, 90% of our posts were simple ‘best of’ lists. These were lower competition keywords. We didn’t build a single backlink (mostly due to my lack of trying). Most of our success came from playing with the wording of semi-long tails. (For example instead of best blender, most reliable blender). Though this is getting harder with semantic search getting better.
Lately I’ve been doing more informational posts, with some level of link building to our top affiliate ones. These are 10x easier to rank for and, with a decent ad network, a good money maker.
Keyword Research
Nothing fancy here.
I’ve used a combination of Ahrefs (batching via their $7/7days trials) and Income School’s “alphabet soup” method to find keywords. Always manually checking the competition before committing to anything.
Article Setup
All on-page SEO is now covered in a publish checklist. Mostly watching out for:
I try to keep it up to date with the latest coming out of Authority Hacker, Backlinko, Ahrefs case studies.
Luckily my friend is a web dev wizard, so our theme is entirely custom with some slick formatting for product reviews, pros/cons, etc. This gives us a high authority look which I can only imagine helps.
Up until recently I hadn’t built a single backlink for the site.
We’d been pretty lucky with the keywords we went for – and mostly still are. There are very few posts I’ve actively built links to, and I’ve yet to deliberately win a medium/hard keyword with strategically built links.
That said, I’ve been trying to do much more in terms of link building. Especially now that I have the time. I’ve really noticed that it’s not about getting 400 money pages, but striking gold with 5-10 of them. We have 160 posts and the 80/20 principle definitely applies to the results we see from them.
Mostly the link building has been a case of shotgun skyscraper (Authority Hacker) and a few exchanges or paid links here and there. I’ve not had too much success, but I'm looking forward to sticking at it until we do. I’ve been inspired by the massive success jumstakl was sharing from this, and want to master it to his level. Though I do appreciate it's all pretty outdated now.
That said, our current top post (25% of all traffic) is a fairly random informational post that I’ve never built links to. For some reason it just topped a very nice SERP in Australia. Can't complain.
One advantage we've had (imo) is in original, well researched content.
Having written over 150,000 words for this site I've gotten pretty quick at putting out articles. I typically take notes on every post in the top 10 results, collate that into one larger outline, and write. There's so many outsourced posts out there that sound like they were written using a Cambridge Thesaurus - so I try to keep things super conversational and easy to read.

The Future

The goal for this site is to keep maintaining what we have while continuing to build. I want minimal input for day-to-day writing, with my only involvement being keyword research, high quality posts, and outreach.
On top of that, I want us to hit a few ‘big’ keywords too. Topics with decent competition where our quality and real links get us to the top and blow up our income.
My ultimate goal is to hit $10k/month in income. This would be huge for me, give me friend some massive side income help (he gets 20%), and put us at a sale value that could buy an apartment.
I desperately need to work with other affiliate programs away from Amazon. This has been something I thought would take days to fix, but I’ve spent ages analyzing potential affiliates and yet to make a sale with any. We’ve started on two silos built for new affiliate programs, so hopefully these will give some good returns.
From what I understand it’s going to be hitting huge success with smaller affiliate programs that will allow you to cruise past 5 figures a month in income. Though I'm a bit paralyzed because it feels like branching out into a new world – rather than the same old rinse and repeat I’m used to with Amazon.

Community Stuff

  1. I’d just like to shout out the mods for keeping this subreddit going. I literally wouldn’t be doing this without this sub (and Humble who started it). Thank you.*
  2. I’d like to agree with the recent sticky – there’s too much spam on here recently. I feel like Humble would lose his mind at the amount of shitposts. It’s up to all of us to report the dumb questions for the automod to remove, and to discourage the ‘Case Study: Month 1’ spam.*
  3. Are there any other communities you guys subscribe to for sites above the $1k/month mark? Speaking regularly to others with established sites would be a massive help - outside of this forum I don't really have anyone to talk to. Would love to become part of a community and make a few friends who also run sites like mine. If there’s anyone like that on here – particularly based in the UK – please hit me up!
Ask Me Anything
There’s obviously much more to our site than I can cover in one post. So AMA! It’s lockdown and I’m bored: if you want to know anything just ask. I may reply slowly, but I will reply.
Thanks for reading.
submitted by xferok to juststart [link] [comments]

Super Bowl LIV Game Thread: San Francisco 49ers (13-3) at Kansas City Chiefs (12-4) (Second half)

San Francisco 49ers at Kansas City Chiefs

First Second Third Fourth Final
49ers 3 7 10 0 20
Chiefs 7 3 0 21 31
  • General information
Coverage Odds
FOX Kansas City -1.5 O/U 54.5
59°F/Wind 5mph/Clear sky/No precipitation expected
  • Game Stats
Passing Cmp/Att Yds Tds Ints
J.Garoppolo 20/31 219 1 2
P.Mahomes 26/42 286 2 2
Rushing Car Yds Lng Tds
R.Mostert 12 58 17 1
Dam.Williams 17 104 38 1
Receiving Rec Yds Lng Tds
K.Bourne 2 42 26 0
D.Samuel 5 39 16 0
T.Hill 9 105 44 0
S.Watkins 5 98 38 0
  • Scoring Summary
Team Q Type Drive
SF 1 FG R.Gould 38 yd. Field Goal Drive: 10 plays, 62 yards in 5:58
KC 1 TD P.Mahomes 1 yd. run (H.Butker kick is good) Drive: 15 plays, 75 yards in 7:26
KC 2 FG H.Butker 31 yd. Field Goal Drive: 9 plays, 43 yards in 4:36
SF 2 TD K.Juszczyk 15 yd. pass from J.Garoppolo (R.Gould kick is good) Drive: 7 plays, 80 yards in 4:27
SF 3 FG R.Gould 42 yd. Field Goal Drive: 9 plays, 60 yards in 5:31
SF 3 TD R.Mostert 1 yd. run (R.Gould kick is good) Drive: 6 plays, 55 yards in 2:48
KC 4 TD T.Kelce 1 yd. pass from P.Mahomes (H.Butker kick is good) Drive: 10 plays, 83 yards in 2:40
KC 4 TD Dam.Williams 5 yd. pass from P.Mahomes (H.Butker kick is good) Drive: 7 plays, 65 yards in 2:26
KC 4 TD Dam.Williams 38 yd. run (H.Butker kick is good) Drive: 2 plays, 42 yards in 0:13
Discuss whatever you wish. You can trash talk, but keep it civil.
If you are experiencing problems with comment sorting in the official reddit app, we suggest using a third-party client instead (Android, iOS)
Turning comment sort to 'new' will help you see the newest comments.
Try Tab Auto Refresh to auto-refresh this tab.
Use to get an autorefreshing version of this page
Check in on the nfl chat: #reddit-nfl on FreeNode (open in browser).
Show your team affiliation - pick your team's logo in the sidebar.
submitted by nfl_gamethread to nfl [link] [comments]

PSA - Politics and fanning the flames.

People have reached out to the mod team about the direction the sub is going, mostly pointing out the sub has taken a more political spin as of late and it's starting to provoke a lot of different levels of discussion. Not going to go in to much detail, but it coincides with the banning of several subs on the website and as many suspect, it's mostly groups of lost redditors trying to find a home.
Just one thing to remember: this sub isn't necessarily a safe space to discuss politics. I have always said that no matter your particular political affiliation, the mod team has always been supportive of allowing all manners of politics to come in as long as it's creating dialogue, especially if it involves the police and it's respectful. Policing is highly political in nature. Many politicians base their political platforms on public safety and the role of policing in those platforms are heavily linked to a wide variety of topics from public policy on the ground to end-game financial goals of a particular jurisdiction. This also influences the politics of legislation in our communities and the police have a role in these discussions.
However, if you come to this sub with politics in mind, be prepared to defend your position. You are not safe here because you lean conservative or liberal. Especially if the point of your post is to provoke or antagonize another party with content aimed towards a particular political party or group of people. We will ban either side for fanning the flames and working towards these little convoluted "Gotcha!" moments that is the point of this thread. Going to some of the other subs and posting something to provoke them, running back here and holding up the flag of "I told you so!" is not something we as a mod team encourage, nor is it something that paints us in a good light.
Back when it was active, subs like chapotraphouse and T_D would do this to fan the flames across the website and it got them banned for it. We're not going down that road here. There's a front page post doing this and all it's doing is provoking the sub that it's targeting. Despite a sticky on the post asking people not to do it, people are reposting it in many different subs and it's pissing people off. We're spending a lot of extra time moderating content from some of the larger subs like publicfreakout and news that have millions of subscribers, just because someone sub linked a post in to a discussion on those subs which starts a new wave of headache for the mod team.
Know what that does? It makes you look like an asshole. You're not going to win anything by doing this. You're gonna get banned, you'll retreat to your sub of choice and circlejerk with the rest of your redditors. And them? They'll be unaffected. They're gonna do the same thing and keep posting the same shit over and over. How many times do we have to remind you that it's nearly impossible to change people's minds when they subscribe to those kinds of echo-chambers? What kind of message does it send when a bunch of supporters run to subs like BLM and throw these "gotcha" posts at them to piss them off? WE, as in this sub, do not hate BLM or their supporters. We might not agree with some of the idealism and definitely do not agree with their leaders, but doing crap like that just makes them hate us even more.
TLDR: Stop giving people an excuse to make us look bad. Cut the sub linking and gotcha content and go back to shitposting memes.
submitted by Specter1033 to ProtectAndServe [link] [comments]

The Bates Family: the Other 19 Kids and Counting

Hi All. I wasn't originally planning to post this for a few days, but I was able to finish it more quickly than I anticipated due to Fundie Wiki containing most of the necessary information.
Before I say more on the Bates family, I should clarify which families I intend to write about for this series, in case others want to cover some of the families I don't know much about and will not cover. I plan to summarize the information we have about:
Karissa Collins
Duggar adjacents (one post; Sierra Dominguez, Kristen Young, the Caldwell family).
Emma Mae Jenkins
Paul and Morgan
The Plath Family
The Transformed Wife
I know there are a lot of other families that we discuss here, but I'm not familiar enough with them to write a wiki. Hopefully other users will be!
Note: Unless otherwise noted, the following information comes from the main Bates family page on Fundie Wiki.
Again, disclaimer: this does not cover absolutely everything. Please feel free to add things on in the comments!
The Bates Family
Many people are already familiar with the Bates because they, like the Duggars, have 19 children. Like the Duggars, the Bates have their own t.v. show and have been featured on numerous t.v. specials, including 19 Kids and Counting. The Bates sisters also run a boutique selling modest clothing.
Also like the Duggars, the Bates are affiliated with IBLP, the Institute of Basic Life Principles, which was formerly run by Bill Gothard. Bill Gothard resigned from IBLP in 2014 following a number of sexual abuse allegations, primarily from then-teenage women who had worked for him at the IBLP headquarters. Gil Bates is now on the board of IBLP (see Bates family wiki). IBLP is a conservative Christian organization that some have characterized as a cult. Among other things, IBLP encourages its followers to homeschool their children, eschew birth control (see the "vasectomy reversal choir"), and not kiss until they marry (and teaches that marriages should be brokered by fathers--see the Duggars' Counting On to see this in action).
Edited to add: The Bates, who are from Tennessee, have received scrutiny for displaying images of Confederate leaders, including a KKK member, in their home. Note the portrait of Stonewall Jackson. The Bates apparently refer to this display as their "Patriot" or "Patriotic Room." So far as I can tell, the Bates haven't addressed this matter, or said anything more about the Confederacy, since these images were posted around 2012. It's unclear to me if this room still exists, or if they simply choose not to show it on camera. Pickles (of Pickles & Hairspray, a Facebook page devoted to speculating about the Duggars) has suggested that Kenneth "Nathan" Bates may have chosen his nickname as an homage to a Confederate Leader and KKK member shown in one of these portraits, which I can't verify. Make of this what you will.
The Bates family consists of 21 members:
Note: unless otherwise linked, this information is taken from the fundiewiki page for each family member, or the main family fundiewiki page.
Parents Gil and Kelly Jo Bates: Gil and Kelly Jo met at Bible college and married in 1987, when Gil was 22 and Kelly Jo was 21. Their children are:
Zach Bates (age 31): Currently married to Whitney Bates following an earlier, failed courtship with Sarah Reith. They married in December 2013. Zach and Whitney have three children; Bradley, Kaci, and Khloé. Their wedding colors were notoriously unfortunate.
Michael(a) Bates Keilen (30): It seems that the name on her birth certificate is Michael, but it is often spelled or stylized as Michaela. Michael is married to Brandon Keilen, who works at IBLP. The pair married in August 2015. Michael and Brandon have been open about their struggles with infertility. Notably, the Biblical Michael was also infertile, something a few people on this subreddit have observed. Michael recently stated that she is attending nursing school.
Erin (Bates) Paine (29): Erin married into another well-known IBLP family when she wed Charles "Chad" Paine III in November of 2013, making her the first Bates child to marry. Erin and Chad married on Bill Gothard's birthday and had a birthday cake for him at the ceremony. Erin plays the piano, and has been featured playing music at several Duggar weddings. Erin attended Crown College in Tennessee, which her brother Lawson paid for. Erin suffers from a blood clotting disorder that resulted in her experiencing several miscarriages in the early months of her marriage. She was diagnosed and received treatment, and she and her husband now share four children, Charles IV, Brooklyn, Everly, and Holland. Some users on this sub have stated that Erin is rarely pictured with her daughter Brooklyn, and that she may favor her only son (Charles IV, aka Carson). This is a subjective judgment you'll have to make for yourself!
William "Lawson" Bates (27): Sometimes referred to as "the fundie Bachelor," (I can't find this post atm, someone please find it because it's hilarious) Lawson is 27 and unmarried, though he may have pre-courted Jinger Duggar shortly before she met Jeremy. Why Lawson has remained single is unknown. Lawson is a pilot who also owned a lawncare business as a teenager. He paid many of the family's bills for a time, and paid to send his sister, Erin, to college. Lawson was apparently around 19 or 20 at this point. Lawson frequently posts model-type pictures of himself on Instagram, and also attempted to become a country singer, leading some people to call him self-absorbed. He has been linked to the Duggar family's 30-year-old unmarried daughter, Jana, in the past. However, there appears to be no real evidence that the two have ever courted. Much of the speculation is likely due to the fact that Jana and Lawson are both single at an unusually old age in their circles.
Kenneth "Nathan" Bates (26): Nathan is a pilot and experienced one brief, failed courtship with a woman named Ashley Slayer. Some believe that either he or Lawson is courting a girl whose picture was spotted as someone's phone screensaver recently. Both Lawson and Nathan have been associated with the controversial Duggar nonprofit, Medicorps.
Alyssa (Bates) Webster (25): Alyssa married at 19 (in May 2014) to John, the son of a conservative politician, and now has three daughters: Allie, Lexi, and Zoey. Alyssa suffers from a heart condition that has required surgery. Alyssa is known for her cotton-candy colored bridesmaids dresses and for dressing herself and her daughters in matching outfits (some of which are apparently gifted to her by an Instagram follower).
Tori (Bates) Smith (24): Tori married Bobby Smith in December 2017. She has two sons, Robert "Kade" and Kolter. She also attended Crown College of the Bible.
Trace Bates (23): Trace had a long (from approximately April 2019-December 2019 [edited]) but ultimately failed courtship with a girl named Chaney. While less than a year may not seem very long, it is not uncommon for fundamentalist couples to become engaged after a few months. Why exactly the courtship ended is unclear, but Trace did make an angsty Instagram post about it. Trace also attended Crown College.
Carlin (Bates) Stewart (22): Carlin is Joy-Anna Duggar's best friend, and she took photographs of Joy-Anna to memorialize her stillborn daughter. She also attended Crown College. Interestingly enough, some speculate that Joe Duggar attended Crown College for a semester in the hope of getting to know Carlin better, only to ultimately pursue his current wife, Kendra. Carlin spoke of having her heart broken prior to her May 2019 wedding to Even Stewart, potentially lending credence to these rumors. Evan and Carlin now one share one daughter Layla, who has a heart condition. A user here once found a Spotify account under Evan's name, with amusing results. Whether the account was genuinely Evan's is unclear.
Josie (Bates) Balka (20): Josie Bates married at 19 to Kelton Balka. They married in October 2018 and share one daughter, Willow. Kelton (who is four years older than Josie) had been interested in her since she was 14 or 15, but her parents did not allow her to be in a relationship at that age. Kelton began pursuing her again around the time she turned 17. Kelton's mother died in childbirth when he was young. Kelton now owns and runs a plumbing company.
Katie Bates (19): Courting Travis Clark (as of September 2019).
The family also includes:
Jackson Bates (18)
Warden Bates (17)
Isaiah Bates (15)
Addallee Bates (14)
Ellie Bates (13)
Callie-Anna Bates (10)
Judson Bates (9)
Jeb Bates (8)
submitted by EmmaofHatfield to FundieSnark [link] [comments]

Affilorama. Affilorama is an affiliate website that, like my first pick, was founded in 2005, and has been helping people be successful in the affiliate marketing business ever since. It’s completely free to start out, and they provide training sections to help you get started, and are the no-nonsense type of business, in that they are up-front and honest with you from the start about how 1. Affiliate Marketing Demands Hard Work and a Long-Term Approach. Did you find any one-page site on this list? While researching for this post, I tried looking for “typical affiliate sites” making money consistently for long period of time. I couldn’t find any. Affiliate marketing is a serious business and demands a long-term approach. The Bradford Exchange and its affiliated companies' official affiliate program, represents three longstanding and valued brands: The Bradford Exchange, The Hamilton Collection and Ashton-Drake. Offering thousands of popular products across multiple collectible affinities, there's never been a better Join the Associates Program and start earning money today. The Amazon Associates Program is one of the largest and most successful online affiliate programs, with over 900,000 members joining worldwide. If you are a Web site owner, an Amazon seller, or a Web developer, you can start earning money today. Affiliate Marketer Club is the only social media platform designated for affiliate marketers. Close. Member Login. Email. Password. Forgot password? Or using. Signin with Facebook. Twitter. Login. The Social NetWork For Affiliate Marketers. Signup with Facebook. Create an account.

[index] [13570] [13598] [2412] [14845] [14771] [3737] [5144] [1734] [14985] [10372]