Options

[YouTube] Thread in the PA Test Kitchen

194959799100

Posts

  • Options
    TheySlashThemTheySlashThem Registered User regular
    https://youtu.be/SvYPaUGGR1w

    errant signal about ea's three big sw games

    no discourse, I promise

  • Options
    ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    fallen order rules but that cover art is terrible

  • Options
    DaMoonRulzDaMoonRulz Mare ImbriumRegistered User regular
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4w2uPKuNlo

    Prank ) Brand new style of vibrato

    3basnids3lf9.jpg




  • Options
    BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User, Moderator mod
    Hahahaha

    BahamutZERO.gif
  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Magell wrote: »
    I said it sucks that lines are being crossed in the process of the necessary and fair feedback, and in a prior post I called it genuinely unfortunate

    Please don't use this as a smokescreen to deflect the very real hurt that people you are literally engaging with first hand are expressing

    Was the targeting of her friends "necessary and fair feedback" would you say?

    I think we should all analyze our friendships when someone we're close to says some wack shit, and sometimes that requires someone with an outside perspective

    I think I've thoroughly covered my beliefs on how harassment isn't okay but you can still ask someone to ask better of their friend

    And most people who wanted contra's friends to comment on what she said didn't want them to stop being friends with her. They wanted people close to contra to point out to her she said some things that were offensive to trans and nb people. And as we saw from her first reaction to people critiquing her she didn't take that feedback well, maybe if her friends pointed it out to her she would actually accept that critique.

    I mean, that's provably false by the content of the messages received but also.

    "Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
    A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.
    B) Uh who are these people to try to insert themselves into the friend's messages? Is that not inherently fucked up and inappropriate? How can you not see that it is?

    And before a person might state that the analogy in A is inappropriate, I'd say either the content is of vital political importance, which means that it's very similar to the analogy or it's not that important, which would mean people are way in the wrong for trying to force the issue like this.

  • Options
    OptyOpty Registered User regular
    When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.

  • Options
    WeedLordVegetaWeedLordVegeta Registered User regular
  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.

    Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.

    And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.

    Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.

    And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.

    These people saw Wynn's conduct as a threat to them - why wouldn't they respond to that with anger, and view refusal as a further threat? I find the argument that we should be looking for "education" or "improvement" to be a very problematic one, as it routinely demands emotional labor from people who many times have been stretched so far from demand after demand to provide that labor over and over. A large number of transgender individuals pointed out why they saw Wynn's passive endorsement of transmedicalism as harmful and a threat - why can't we take them at their word? Or at the very least, understand why they consider people who don't agree with their position to be threats to them?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    OptyOpty Registered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.

    Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.

    And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.

    To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.

  • Options
    Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    "Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
    A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.

    hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say

    or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    edited January 2020
    Opty wrote: »
    Opty wrote: »
    When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.

    Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.

    And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.

    To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.

    This is interesting when the "thing" is actually thought crimes that are directly denied by both people. But hey, people felt threatened. So long as you feel threatened, apparently the gloves can come off. Now Contra can feel threatened and she can do whatever, right? Or is that not reasonable and actually very dangerous and bad? For "feeling threatened" or "feeling hurt" to be a blank check for mob tactics and threats?
    "Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
    A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.

    hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say

    or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too

    Hey, people have directly died from this. Committed suicide. I also directly pre-empted this point, which I expected someone to trot out. I thought maybe there'd be a reason that my statement didn't make sense if you wanted to say this anyway but lol. Thanks for proving you didn't listen to what I was saying or watch the video this is about. But i guess scoring cheap (but incorrect) points about me overdramatizing this is worth it?

    shoeboxjeddy on
  • Options
    CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
  • Options
    Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    was writing up another response, but remembered that this is the general youtube thread and maybe we can all stop stinking it up with circular arguments that aren't convincing anyone of anything

  • Options
    OptyOpty Registered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    Opty wrote: »
    When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.

    Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.

    And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.

    To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.

    This is interesting when the "thing" is actually thought crimes that are directly denied by both people. But hey, people felt threatened. So long as you feel threatened, apparently the gloves can come off. Now Contra can feel threatened and she can do whatever, right? Or is that not reasonable and actually very dangerous and bad? For "feeling threatened" or "feeling hurt" to be a blank check for mob tactics and threats?
    "Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
    A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.

    hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say

    or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too

    Hey, people have directly died from this. Committed suicide. I also directly pre-empted this point, which I expected someone to trot out. I thought maybe there'd be a reason that my statement didn't make sense if you wanted to say this anyway but lol. Thanks for proving you didn't listen to what I was saying or watch the video this is about. But i guess scoring cheap (but incorrect) points about me overdramatizing this is worth it?

    Using the phrase "thought crimes" betrays the position you're arguing from.

  • Options
    WhiteZinfandelWhiteZinfandel Your insides Let me show you themRegistered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.

    Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.

    And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.

    These people saw Wynn's conduct as a threat to them - why wouldn't they respond to that with anger, and view refusal as a further threat? I find the argument that we should be looking for "education" or "improvement" to be a very problematic one, as it routinely demands emotional labor from people who many times have been stretched so far from demand after demand to provide that labor over and over. A large number of transgender individuals pointed out why they saw Wynn's passive endorsement of transmedicalism as harmful and a threat - why can't we take them at their word? Or at the very least, understand why they consider people who don't agree with their position to be threats to them?

    I have very little sympathy for the idea that Wynn using Buck Angel for 10 seconds of VO is a "threat to them." That's overwrought and unreasonable.
    Opty wrote: »
    Opty wrote: »
    When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.

    Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.

    And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.

    To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.

    What is "also doing the same thing" here? Nobody else had Buck Angel do any VO work.

  • Options
    UnbrokenEvaUnbrokenEva HIGH ON THE WIRE BUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered User regular
    Is there a reason you’re pretending that having BA do voice over work is the one and only time Contra has said or done something that folks found harmful, as opposed to another example on a pattern of behaviour?

  • Options
    WhiteZinfandelWhiteZinfandel Your insides Let me show you themRegistered User regular
    I'm not pretending anything. I'm addressing the most recent issue, the one that seems to have provoked the biggest reaction by far and is easiest to discuss in specific terms, in an attempt to reduce the level of abstraction in this discourse. Is there some other thing CP did that actually was a threat to people? Was there another issue that caused people to jump on Lindsay Ellis and PhilosophyTube?

  • Options
    UnbrokenEvaUnbrokenEva HIGH ON THE WIRE BUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered User regular
    edited January 2020
    FWIW I am not an expert on this situation and the issues underlying it, but I've tried my best to understand as it's progressed. From what I have seen, it's more that the BA thing was the culmination of people's ongoing issues with Contra claiming to support nonbinary out of one side of her mouth, while continuing to make comments questioning their validity and that of trans women who she implied weren't presenting as sufficiently female. It wasn't the beginning, it was the last straw.

    UnbrokenEva on
  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    Opty wrote: »
    Opty wrote: »
    When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.

    Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.

    And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.

    To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.

    This is interesting when the "thing" is actually thought crimes that are directly denied by both people. But hey, people felt threatened. So long as you feel threatened, apparently the gloves can come off. Now Contra can feel threatened and she can do whatever, right? Or is that not reasonable and actually very dangerous and bad? For "feeling threatened" or "feeling hurt" to be a blank check for mob tactics and threats?
    "Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
    A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.

    hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say

    or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too

    Hey, people have directly died from this. Committed suicide. I also directly pre-empted this point, which I expected someone to trot out. I thought maybe there'd be a reason that my statement didn't make sense if you wanted to say this anyway but lol. Thanks for proving you didn't listen to what I was saying or watch the video this is about. But i guess scoring cheap (but incorrect) points about me overdramatizing this is worth it?

    Using the phrase "thought crimes" betrays the position you're arguing from.

    The position that Natalie believes something nasty in her true heart but will lie about if asked. That is literally a thought crime. So the position I'm arguing from is an understanding of the actual charge being leveled.

  • Options
    OptyOpty Registered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    Opty wrote: »
    Opty wrote: »
    When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.

    Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.

    And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.

    To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.

    This is interesting when the "thing" is actually thought crimes that are directly denied by both people. But hey, people felt threatened. So long as you feel threatened, apparently the gloves can come off. Now Contra can feel threatened and she can do whatever, right? Or is that not reasonable and actually very dangerous and bad? For "feeling threatened" or "feeling hurt" to be a blank check for mob tactics and threats?
    "Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
    A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.

    hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say

    or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too

    Hey, people have directly died from this. Committed suicide. I also directly pre-empted this point, which I expected someone to trot out. I thought maybe there'd be a reason that my statement didn't make sense if you wanted to say this anyway but lol. Thanks for proving you didn't listen to what I was saying or watch the video this is about. But i guess scoring cheap (but incorrect) points about me overdramatizing this is worth it?

    Using the phrase "thought crimes" betrays the position you're arguing from.

    The position that Natalie believes something nasty in her true heart but will lie about if asked. That is literally a thought crime. So the position I'm arguing from is an understanding of the actual charge being leveled.

    If you say you believe one thing but your actions make it seem like you believe another thing, then questioning if your words are true is valid.

  • Options
    ph blakeph blake Registered User regular
    Contrapoints has been making consistently shitty statements about NB and non passing trans people for years, and no one needs to watch a fucking 2 hour long youtube video to justify criticizing her along these lines.

    "But when everyone yells at her the valid points get mixed in with the verbal abuse/death threats!!!!!1"

    Ok, sure, which is why you don't see me ating her or camping her mentions on twitter, but I don't expect anyone to just go "hmm, yes, I see nothing wrong here" when someone posts said 2 hour video in this thread.

    7h8wnycre6vs.png
  • Options
    Bendery It Like BeckhamBendery It Like Beckham Hopeless Registered User regular

    This attack on my person will not be forgotten.

  • Options
    Lord PalingtonLord Palington he.him.his History-loving pal!Registered User regular
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_XbtYfrNYI

    Conan O'Brien found this 2004 performance from Mitch Hedberg in the old files and uploaded it to YouTube. It was a nice little nostalgia dose this afternoon.

    SrUxdlb.jpg
  • Options
    AistanAistan Tiny Bat Registered User regular

    Geez I didn't see that Reverse Riker coming.

  • Options
    BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User, Moderator mod
    that's a good video good job Patrick Gill

    BahamutZERO.gif
  • Options
    TonkkaTonkka Some one in the club tonight Has stolen my ideas.Registered User regular
    I miss Mitch Hedberg so very much.

    Steam: evilumpire Battle.net: T0NKKA#1588 PS4: T_0_N_N_K_A Twitter Art blog/Portfolio! Twitch?! HEY SATAN Shirts and such
  • Options
    halkunhalkun Registered User regular
    So I have a friend with CAIS and always found it interesting. While in a chat room, I was telling someone about her and they went to the youtubes to learn more. Turns out there is a lovely lady who talks about her CAIS and covers all the basics.

    https://youtu.be/5vDVUPjBJiM

  • Options
    DirtyboyDirtyboy Registered User regular
    [CHOREOGRAPHY] BTS (방탄소년단) 2019 MMA 'Dionysus' Dance Practice

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bccr1BwNI0Y

  • Options
    FiendishrabbitFiendishrabbit Registered User regular
    "Japan in 8K".
    "Maximum Video resolution: 4K"

    "The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
    -Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
  • Options
    TheStigTheStig Registered User regular
    Just looks like normal resolution on my phone

    bnet: TheStig#1787 Steam: TheStig
  • Options
    Kevin CristKevin Crist I make the devil hit his knees and say the 'our father'Registered User regular
  • Options
    PeasPeas Registered User regular
    The Turning Point 3:27
    https://youtu.be/p7LDk4D3Q3U

    'The Turning Point' explores the destruction of the environment, climate change and species extinction from different perspective. Music by Wantaways.
    Created in After Effects, Premiere Pro, Clip Studio Pro and Cinema 4D.
    Written, directed and animated by Steve Cutts

  • Options
    WeedLordVegetaWeedLordVegeta Registered User regular
  • Options
    facetiousfacetious a wit so dry it shits sandRegistered User regular
    edited January 2020
    marble spoilers:
    LET'S GO RED #3! BACK TO BACK CHAMPIONSHIPS! GREATEST OF ALL TIME!

    And fuck the Savage Speeders. They're not even in the sand rally league but they're evil.

    facetious on
    "I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde
    Real strong, facetious.

    Steam: Chagrin LoL: Bonhomie
  • Options
    WeedLordVegetaWeedLordVegeta Registered User regular
    Comet was having the best race of their career and red number 3 clearly interfered but lol gotta push RN3

This discussion has been closed.