The Taliban is still actively and effectively fighting the most advanced and powerful military in the world. There's a reason the 2A is number 2 on the list.
I dont mean to be off topic but does any of you know a trick to get back into an instagram account? I was dumb forgot my account password. I love any help you can give me!
Indeed, we need more dialogue and less debate. Very few things have objectively only one answer, the rest are just opinions, which depend on how we choose to examine the matter. What and how we choose is shaped by our experiences in life, and no one has the right to dismiss someone else's life as invalid or wrong. Every experience is valid and real, even if only for one person. Your experiences are valid and real even without convincing others or gaining their approval. There's always a reason for each opinion and each belief. Always. So find those reasons for yourself and from others as well. :)
The first red flag was that the political spectrum within the journalism supported conversation. This is peak centrism. Reducing the divide between political stances within the overtown window. Not big suprise, I will move on with my life.
None of that needs any special training or moderation. To facility dialog. What is needed. 1) The willingness to entertain the idea you could be wrong. 2) The recognition that the other person might know something you do not. 3) And the willingness to try to understand what the other is saying and not to jump to what you think they are saying. This is difficult, it’s much easier to straw-man, label people as bad, so you don’t have to do the hard work of actually challenging yourself and your ideas. I don’t need a safe space to feel comfortable expressing my ideals.
I think it would be great with just the 3rd point, just the idea of listening to why someone feels and thinks the way they do, whether it is right or wrong. Actually there is no right or wrong, just different viewpoints that arise from different viewpoints - lives - experiences and _history._
I love that she emphasises this phenomenon of communication, which is what Ghandi, Mother Theresa or Ibrahim Rugova knew to utilize. Bringing two controversies together and solve the inner conflicts or prejudice that they are having to the other - peacefully, with gratitude and respect. When water wants to find a way it will find it. That doesn't mean that the stones and ground is being ignored, rather water harmonises with it and even takes it for getting the direction.
Dialogue requires honesty, what if one party is wilfully ignorant and disingenuous? I don't think they looked deep enough into the trenches if they were able to achieve dialogue.
Hanlon's razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity Of course it is possible for the other side to hold malignant views and being wilfully ignorant. In my personal experience though I cannot remember a case in the last few years where this would have obviously been the case.
This is what the whole talk was about. I honestly can't understand how you can ask that question after watching this. It is your approach in your question that is exactly the problem. Please, examine yourself and see if you truly have an open mind. Once your sure it is open watch this talk again.
@@dongemus Yes. Sometimes, some people in a party are being wilfully ignorant, but not all. Some have vested interests, but not everyone is selfish or will benefit from the scheme. Atleast you can have a conversation with them. No one is perfect. Maybe it is you who is being dilusional. Or maybe some have some very good reason to support something wrong.
I love this !!! ~~~ Note: we are not a pure democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, where the common American owns America, not just the elite, which is a hallmark of a democracy. The definition of the word ''democracy'' has changed over the years, but the strict meaning of it has not. We are a Constitutional Republic, ''of the people, by the people, and for the people'', is not a true democracy; we are a Representative Constitutional Republic, and to say otherwise is to see our government owning America, which it does not, and away from the government being owned by the people: We the People sign the checks of everyone in government by our taxes. The web is all confused on this as it has changed the meaning of words and terms over the years, yet the original meanings have remained, but hidden.
Thank you for doing this. I hope and pray that more people in your field would do what you've done; instead of what they, on both sides, are doing; digging trenches........ I've been politically active most of my life. First 7 years in Iceland, I'm Danish, but I lived and worked there for 7 years. Then after I moved back home, here in Denmark, for 38 years. And not, ever has the hate been so bad, since Obama gi'r elected. I very well know people is going to be mad at me for saying this. But that's my experience in the political atmosphere, ever since. Not only in the US, but also here in the Scandinavian countries. I have relatives in Norway and Sweden and it's also what they say. There has never been so big a division between people as there is now. Thank you for your effort. 🇩🇰🇺🇸👍😎 And your Ted talk 😍🇩🇰🇺🇸👍😎
I believe that words are strong, that they can overwhelm what we fear when fear seems more awful than life is good. ❤ If you need help with talking and being confident, let me know!? :)
Great idea! Now, lets disect the difference between our democracy, and our Republic, and we can have a more thorough conversation and better understanding of how our government CURRENTLY works, with how iur government is SUPPOSED to work, and the dialogue opens up further.
While that may have contributed, it was primarily because he pretended to be a populist and won the rust belt which Clinton thought she was guaranteed.
Sorry for being salty, but this talk was just a boring 9-min on-and-on of vague statements like: "we should put our egos aside, listen deeply, and listen around our biases." TLDW: We put together 2 disagreeing groups of people and let them talk. After some time, they learned to put aside their differences and became more cooperative. YAY :)
It takes 2 willing minds to come together, to try understand eachother. If these 2 are allready willing, there’s no war. How can i make a friend of mine willing, because she will shout when we disagree. Well she doesnt respect me. So i broke our friendship. I always come with arguments, she with emotions. She sees emotion as true, as the highest. And puts my arguments aside as cold analytical. She’s always right. And if not, she’ll just shout louder. And if that doesnt work, she will blame my personality, call me names. I had enough
We should institute Ted Talk Videos at least once a day or something in school. Inspirational and ya learn something.The students may be entertained, but can be regulated in current educational systems. Also I thought this girl was about to cry at some point she was going HAM or maybe personal experience or emotional "trauma" may have influenced this
I’ve tried- for 10 or so years I have tried to have reasonable, civil conversations with liberals. I noticed that when Obama got elected it became progressively more difficult. Now that the Democratic Party has shown its real agenda through Progressivism, it is impossible to have a conversation about anything at all. I have distanced myself from Progressives now, even though I am a centrist liberal myself! The Green New Deal is insane; however, when it comes to full-term and after delivery abortions (infanticide), how can one possibly have a conversation? And, if every response is to call other’s science deny(er), homophobe, racist and such- how can one have a conversation? Unfortunately, Progressives don’t want to hear anything that is not in line with their fascist ideology - and, they don’t want anyone else to hear nor consider viewpoints that are not congruent to their manifesto (The Green New Deal).
Comment section is terrifying. So many people willing to dig deeper into their circle jerks and echo chamebers, doing exactly what this speaker advises against.
Negotiation requires that you have a token of power in your hands. If the other party is enshrined with the corruption or similar scheme, none of what you say will be relevant or matters. You will meet ‘fight-to-the-death’ resistance. To come to an agreement is simply a futile exercise-because it will cancel out illicit profits! Negotiation is only possible when there is a common ground of sharing, especially that which concerns utter survival!
This is nonsense. You dont beat dogma with reason. Most followers of dogma are just that, followers. So in order to beat them you need to become more popular and unapologetic, while pushing policies that would actually help them. The latter alone, expecting them to "see the light" isnt enough. Because IF it was, they wouldnt be followers of dogma in the first place! That is how you sway more of these fools that vote against their own interest. You dont cater to them like they are smart for voting against their own interest, lacking education to tell so and so on...
En la apli o en la página web este video ya está subtitulado en inglés y portugués, así que será cuestión de tiempo para que esté en español. www.ted.com/talks/eve_pearlman_how_to_lead_a_conversation_between_people_who_disagree/transcript
Interesting...If this is supposedly trying to help us truly listen to each other and understand each other's paradigms and understand all sides of various issues, then why is she starting with a basic premise that is already skewing and influencing the participants thought processes? She repeatedly referred to "democracy" and inferred live importance of and universal acceptance of this nation being a democracy, when in fact this nation is not a democracy, never was, and for all our sakes I hope it never will be. It is a Democratic Republic, and for good reason. Anyone reading this and not sure what I'm talking about, please look it up and understand the critical difference.
Okay, watched the Ted Talk. It is reasonable to have conversations about the reasons for the conflicting ideologies. Yet, in practice, it is impossible today. No one can justify Progressive antisemitism, infanticide, sharia law, suppression of free speech, attacks on our military and border agents- to name a few serious issues that will always be in conflict with our Constitutional Rights (that is what is most important to a conservative). Due process is not allowed by elements like #metoo. National security is not in line with open borders- and, you cannot have a welfare state with open borders- we are in the process of engulfing 3 South American nations that are immigrating illegally to our country. There are only 2 genders- male and female- I was taught that in undergrad (Biology Major) and Medical School. White people are not all white supremacist- the majority are very empathetic towards people’s suffering and oppression ; yet, i cannot blame them since they are accused of all forms of evil (which has been consistently a product of Post Modernist Progressives. Progressive , Communism, Fascism all have their roots in Hegel (philosopher)- try reading “The Dialectic” and you will see that the dialog is one of destroying another perception- in conclusion there is the master and the slave. Liberals all think they are the intellectual elite, yet cannot think critically. Indeed, journalists have contributed remarkably to our national discontent. How about this- journalist, teachers, doctors (like me), counselors, anyone who has the potential to influence others (especially children) should not impose their ideologies others- they should be objective. Now, The Green New Deal, which outlines a plan for complete governmental control of every means of consumption and production, is something that conservatives (or any sane individual) will oppose. Finally, a ton of journalists missed the greatest political issue, most of all doubling down on their claims- yet, are not interested in Russian collusion now that Obama, Clinton (emails found in Obama’s office, Clinton paid money to a spy organization thus colluding with Russians, Obama implicated in the entire hoax)- a hoax that most of the journalists have missed!!! I have no respect for most journalists, most are Progressive and those who are not are shunned (Chris Wallace discussed his reason to claim to be a democrat was because in DC you would be censored and blocked if you weren’t.Christ is a centrist democrat. Problem is, it appears that centrist Democrats are fading away.
Ok not really a lot of real help beside ask the other party What they thing about you and say What you Think about Them and then work on those to get closer.
You're a country with many things, don't get so caught up on trying to label everything with one word. You *have* democracy, a criminal justice system using votes of 12 people picked from the population is democratic, states that give the population the ability to put proposals on the ballot and vote on them is democratic, the process of choosing a representative is democratic, but you do not have any democratic representation in the board rooms of major corporations that you depend on, and you don't get to choose what your neighbour has for breakfast, you have no representation in that decision, but you do decide what you eat yourself. "Democracy" doesn't mean everybody gets to be part of every decision, it's the decisions themselves that are either democratic or not... decisions that are made for you, that affect you, are not democratic, but decisions made with you, or taken by you, are... in your country you have both, so you do have democracy. The word "republic" just means "public thing" (from latin "res publica") so the two are not mutually exclusive, it's not a fight.
Her topic is good, but her presentation skills suck. 1. She reads from her notes as if she delivers a University lecture. This ruins the very style of Ted talks. 2. She is emotionally cold. She gives a message as if she doesn't really believe in what she is talking about. 3. Too many pauses to find here lines in her text.
Dialogue among those who fervently support the two worst candidates and sorriest excuses for human beings ever ain't much to go for. Certainly keeps the discussion within the duopoly good cop / bad cop scam.
did you feel this way bc of the result of the experiment being what it is? (-just- a change in attitude/approach, and not the result of the experiment being lets say: reaching a decision & taking action on the matter.) or something else?
God created nations and gave them unique culture and traditions. And told them to unite in Christ! This is only unity which is available for The People. It doesn't matter how humans exercise the gift and talent of speaking, sometimes you may wish that they would be miaoing and barking rather instead of talking, that how bad their attentions may be.
*I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it*
No you wouldn't
That's a healthy way of thinking. And we need guns to defend that free speech.
TheEpic RiceMaker and maybe some bombs and tanks
FaithLehane Voltaire would
The Taliban is still actively and effectively fighting the most advanced and powerful military in the world. There's a reason the 2A is number 2 on the list.
Hey everybody reading the comments, empathy and not hating your neighbours is a good thing, try it.
I dont mean to be off topic but does any of you know a trick to get back into an instagram account?
I was dumb forgot my account password. I love any help you can give me!
@Beau Israel instablaster ;)
Indeed, we need more dialogue and less debate. Very few things have objectively only one answer, the rest are just opinions, which depend on how we choose to examine the matter. What and how we choose is shaped by our experiences in life, and no one has the right to dismiss someone else's life as invalid or wrong. Every experience is valid and real, even if only for one person. Your experiences are valid and real even without convincing others or gaining their approval. There's always a reason for each opinion and each belief. Always. So find those reasons for yourself and from others as well. :)
The first red flag was that the political spectrum within the journalism supported conversation.
This is peak centrism. Reducing the divide between political stances within the overtown window.
Not big suprise, I will move on with my life.
Thanks for the work you do for democracy!
Excellent talk!
None of that needs any special training or moderation. To facility dialog.
What is needed.
1) The willingness to entertain the idea you could be wrong.
2) The recognition that the other person might know something you do not.
3) And the willingness to try to understand what the other is saying and not to jump to what you think they are saying.
This is difficult, it’s much easier to straw-man, label people as bad, so you don’t have to do the hard work of actually challenging yourself and your ideas.
I don’t need a safe space to feel comfortable expressing my ideals.
I think it would be great with just the 3rd point, just the idea of listening to why someone feels and thinks the way they do, whether it is right or wrong. Actually there is no right or wrong, just different viewpoints that arise from different viewpoints - lives - experiences and _history._
Unfortunately humility is in short supply these days
I love that she emphasises this phenomenon of communication, which is what Ghandi, Mother Theresa or Ibrahim Rugova knew to utilize. Bringing two controversies together and solve the inner conflicts or prejudice that they are having to the other - peacefully, with gratitude and respect. When water wants to find a way it will find it. That doesn't mean that the stones and ground is being ignored, rather water harmonises with it and even takes it for getting the direction.
Title is misleading.
It lacks structure.
@@tylermerlin8320 it lacks structure. but title is also misleading.
@@jasontan6013 mmm I disagree. She emphasized empathy as the key to not exclude a demographic.
It is indeed. Except asking for what "others" think about "them" and vice versa, I have not learnt anything about leading conversation...
by insulting someone you get alenation not an understanding
Dialogue requires honesty, what if one party is wilfully ignorant and disingenuous? I don't think they looked deep enough into the trenches if they were able to achieve dialogue.
spot on
Walrave There was zero curiosity in journalism prior to the 2016 campaign.
Hanlon's razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
Of course it is possible for the other side to hold malignant views and being wilfully ignorant. In my personal experience though I cannot remember a case in the last few years where this would have obviously been the case.
This is what the whole talk was about. I honestly can't understand how you can ask that question after watching this.
It is your approach in your question that is exactly the problem. Please, examine yourself and see if you truly have an open mind. Once your sure it is open watch this talk again.
@@dongemus Yes. Sometimes, some people in a party are being wilfully ignorant, but not all. Some have vested interests, but not everyone is selfish or will benefit from the scheme. Atleast you can have a conversation with them. No one is perfect. Maybe it is you who is being dilusional. Or maybe some have some very good reason to support something wrong.
Great and CORRECT message, but what's shocking is that enough people don't know these basics that this can be a TED talk.
I love this !!! ~~~ Note: we are not a pure democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, where the common American owns America, not just the elite, which is a hallmark of a democracy. The definition of the word ''democracy'' has changed over the years, but the strict meaning of it has not. We are a Constitutional Republic, ''of the people, by the people, and for the people'', is not a true democracy; we are a Representative Constitutional Republic, and to say otherwise is to see our government owning America, which it does not, and away from the government being owned by the people: We the People sign the checks of everyone in government by our taxes. The web is all confused on this as it has changed the meaning of words and terms over the years, yet the original meanings have remained, but hidden.
Thank you for doing this.
I hope and pray that more people in your field would do what you've done; instead of what they, on both sides, are doing; digging trenches........
I've been politically active most of my life. First 7 years in Iceland, I'm Danish, but I lived and worked there for 7 years. Then after I moved back home, here in Denmark, for 38 years. And not, ever has the hate been so bad, since Obama gi'r elected. I very well know people is going to be mad at me for saying this. But that's my experience in the political atmosphere, ever since. Not only in the US, but also here in the Scandinavian countries. I have relatives in Norway and Sweden and it's also what they say. There has never been so big a division between people as there is now.
Thank you for your effort. 🇩🇰🇺🇸👍😎
And your Ted talk 😍🇩🇰🇺🇸👍😎
Yep, that tends to happen when political "elites" push to demonize half the country that wants nothing to do with their agenda.
I believe that words are strong, that they can overwhelm what we fear when fear seems more awful than life is good. ❤ If you need help with talking and being confident, let me know!? :)
"bias mining". "Flinging talking points". Well put.
Great idea! Now, lets disect the difference between our democracy, and our Republic, and we can have a more thorough conversation and better understanding of how our government CURRENTLY works, with how iur government is SUPPOSED to work, and the dialogue opens up further.
*They need the time and space to sell their stories.*
Don't cut people short because you don't agree with them. This is how we got Trump.
While that may have contributed, it was primarily because he pretended to be a populist and won the rust belt which Clinton thought she was guaranteed.
@@CephalicMiasma4 why pretend when you already are one
This should not be only practiced in journalism, but in all democracies as part of the democratic process
Engage the other with the intention to understand not to prove the other wrong or ourselves correct.
Structural debate is the only answer
Where there is Kakistocracy ....it won't take place..
Sorry for being salty, but this talk was just a boring 9-min on-and-on of vague statements like: "we should put our egos aside, listen deeply, and listen around our biases."
TLDW: We put together 2 disagreeing groups of people and let them talk. After some time, they learned to put aside their differences and became more cooperative. YAY :)
also, a very misleading title. The video does not tell you "how" in any specific way.
It takes 2 willing minds to come together, to try understand eachother.
If these 2 are allready willing, there’s no war. How can i make a friend of mine willing, because she will shout when we disagree. Well she doesnt respect me. So i broke our friendship. I always come with arguments, she with emotions. She sees emotion as true, as the highest. And puts my arguments aside as cold analytical. She’s always right. And if not, she’ll just shout louder. And if that doesnt work, she will blame my personality, call me names. I had enough
We should institute Ted Talk Videos at least once a day or something in school. Inspirational and ya learn something.The students may be entertained, but can be regulated in current educational systems.
Also I thought this girl was about to cry at some point she was going HAM or maybe personal experience or emotional "trauma" may have influenced this
im here for an english assignment
Instructions were unclear. Subjects declared war on each other.
I got nothing from this, and modern-day Journalism is all Yellow and no hope for change. Interesting subject but vacuous.
Divide and conquer.
That is the name of the game that those few use to control the most
Thank you.
I’ve tried- for 10 or so years I have tried to have reasonable, civil conversations with liberals. I noticed that when Obama got elected it became progressively more difficult. Now that the Democratic Party has shown its real agenda through Progressivism, it is impossible to have a conversation about anything at all. I have distanced myself from Progressives now, even though I am a centrist liberal myself! The Green New Deal is insane; however, when it comes to full-term and after delivery abortions (infanticide), how can one possibly have a conversation? And, if every response is to call other’s science deny(er), homophobe, racist and such- how can one have a conversation? Unfortunately, Progressives don’t want to hear anything that is not in line with their fascist ideology - and, they don’t want anyone else to hear nor consider viewpoints that are not congruent to their manifesto (The Green New Deal).
“Take ten paces. Turn and fire”.
what was I suppose to learn? I see no leadership msg. here.
I totally agree
Great talk
Comment section is terrifying. So many people willing to dig deeper into their circle jerks and echo chamebers, doing exactly what this speaker advises against.
Didn't you listen to the shame and condemnation doesn't help bit?
Negotiation requires that you have a token of power in your hands.
If the other party is enshrined with the corruption or similar scheme, none of what you say will be relevant or matters. You will meet ‘fight-to-the-death’ resistance.
To come to an agreement is simply a futile exercise-because it will cancel out illicit profits!
Negotiation is only possible when there is a common ground of sharing, especially that which concerns utter survival!
First be sure to have enough beer available before and during the speech,
than you may adopt any convenient strategy. Tip: never bring in whisky.
I disagree with her idea
Circle up
DAGA KOTOWARU
NANI?
Great experiment! We need more of this imo
This is nonsense. You dont beat dogma with reason. Most followers of dogma are just that, followers. So in order to beat them you need to become more popular and unapologetic, while pushing policies that would actually help them. The latter alone, expecting them to "see the light" isnt enough. Because IF it was, they wouldnt be followers of dogma in the first place! That is how you sway more of these fools that vote against their own interest. You dont cater to them like they are smart for voting against their own interest, lacking education to tell so and so on...
@bob bob You forgot /jk at the end. /sarcasm
Sure, congeniality, dignity, and decency are preferable. But it was snark, shame, and condescension that got Trump elected.
If a flat-earther is in the conversation, I won't even bother.
Waste of time, but thank you
Buenas tardes sería posible poner subtítulos en español gracias a Ted
En la apli o en la página web este video ya está subtitulado en inglés y portugués, así que será cuestión de tiempo para que esté en español.
www.ted.com/talks/eve_pearlman_how_to_lead_a_conversation_between_people_who_disagree/transcript
@@Carlsenberg excelente muchas gracias
The media doesn't operate like this lol
Interesting...If this is supposedly trying to help us truly listen to each other and understand each other's paradigms and understand all sides of various issues, then why is she starting with a basic premise that is already skewing and influencing the participants thought processes? She repeatedly referred to "democracy" and inferred live importance of and universal acceptance of this nation being a democracy, when in fact this nation is not a democracy, never was, and for all our sakes I hope it never will be. It is a Democratic Republic, and for good reason. Anyone reading this and not sure what I'm talking about, please look it up and understand the critical difference.
Good talk, but TED should move back to TECHNOLOGY, ENTERTAINMENT & DESIGN.
You need a bigger stage like Prometheus movie
3:52 who gave them these stereotypical narratives?
Check out SmarterEveryDay last two videos.
Okay, watched the Ted Talk. It is reasonable to have conversations about the reasons for the conflicting ideologies. Yet, in practice, it is impossible today. No one can justify Progressive antisemitism, infanticide, sharia law, suppression of free speech, attacks on our military and border agents- to name a few serious issues that will always be in conflict with our Constitutional Rights (that is what is most important to a conservative). Due process is not allowed by elements like #metoo. National security is not in line with open borders- and, you cannot have a welfare state with open borders- we are in the process of engulfing 3 South American nations that are immigrating illegally to our country. There are only 2 genders- male and female- I was taught that in undergrad (Biology Major) and Medical School. White people are not all white supremacist- the majority are very empathetic towards people’s suffering and oppression ; yet, i cannot blame them since they are accused of all forms of evil (which has been consistently a product of Post Modernist Progressives. Progressive , Communism, Fascism all have their roots in Hegel (philosopher)- try reading “The Dialectic” and you will see that the dialog is one of destroying another perception- in conclusion there is the master and the slave. Liberals all think they are the intellectual elite, yet cannot think critically. Indeed, journalists have contributed remarkably to our national discontent. How about this- journalist, teachers, doctors (like me), counselors, anyone who has the potential to influence others (especially children) should not impose their ideologies others- they should be objective. Now, The Green New Deal, which outlines a plan for complete governmental control of every means of consumption and production, is something that conservatives (or any sane individual) will oppose. Finally, a ton of journalists missed the greatest political issue, most of all doubling down on their claims- yet, are not interested in Russian collusion now that Obama, Clinton (emails found in Obama’s office, Clinton paid money to a spy organization thus colluding with Russians, Obama implicated in the entire hoax)- a hoax that most of the journalists have missed!!! I have no respect for most journalists, most are Progressive and those who are not are shunned (Chris Wallace discussed his reason to claim to be a democrat was because in DC you would be censored and blocked if you weren’t.Christ is a centrist democrat. Problem is, it appears that centrist Democrats are fading away.
“question traps” entangled within this whole diatribe.
👌
Ничего не понял, но было познавательно
Ok not really a lot of real help beside ask the other party What they thing about you and say What you Think about Them and then work on those to get closer.
I am vegan so thank you
I am carnivore, thanks
We are not a democracy. We are a republic get that straight
You're a country with many things, don't get so caught up on trying to label everything with one word. You *have* democracy, a criminal justice system using votes of 12 people picked from the population is democratic, states that give the population the ability to put proposals on the ballot and vote on them is democratic, the process of choosing a representative is democratic, but you do not have any democratic representation in the board rooms of major corporations that you depend on, and you don't get to choose what your neighbour has for breakfast, you have no representation in that decision, but you do decide what you eat yourself. "Democracy" doesn't mean everybody gets to be part of every decision, it's the decisions themselves that are either democratic or not... decisions that are made for you, that affect you, are not democratic, but decisions made with you, or taken by you, are... in your country you have both, so you do have democracy. The word "republic" just means "public thing" (from latin "res publica") so the two are not mutually exclusive, it's not a fight.
Wasting time !
Great to see Liz Lemon finally doing a TED talk
my reaction to this very important and meaningful work: who cares. its already the zombie apochalypse. >:]
I disagree
Her topic is good, but her presentation skills suck.
1. She reads from her notes as if she delivers a University lecture. This ruins the very style of Ted talks.
2. She is emotionally cold. She gives a message as if she doesn't really believe in what she is talking about.
3. Too many pauses to find here lines in her text.
có vẻ bà ấy hơi run ?
Now this is something I always wanted to know! Finally!!
Trump 2020
Dialogue among those who fervently support the two worst candidates and sorriest excuses for human beings ever ain't much to go for. Certainly keeps the discussion within the duopoly good cop / bad cop scam.
Tbh kinda vacuous speech if you ask me
did you feel this way bc of the result of the experiment being what it is? (-just- a change in attitude/approach, and not the result of the experiment being lets say: reaching a decision & taking action on the matter.)
or something else?
Time to make something disagreeable agreeable again
I don't want to be no. 1, 2 or 3..
I want to learn
please check out Andrew Yang for pres you will be surprised do it now before they push him out PLEASE
This was all blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
1
🥳
God created nations and gave them unique culture and traditions. And told them to unite in Christ! This is only unity which is available for The People. It doesn't matter how humans exercise the gift and talent of speaking, sometimes you may wish that they would be miaoing and barking rather instead of talking, that how bad their attentions may be.
2
Hello sir! please subtitles Arabic
Couldn't have unsubbed at a better time.
2
2