Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Tests A Software That Judges Hollywood's Portrayal of Women

Posted by EditorDavid on from the don't-be-evil dept.

Slashdot reader theodp writes: Aside from it being hosted in a town without a movie theater, the 2016 Bentonville Film Festival was also unusual in that it required all entrants to submit "film scripts and downloadable versions of the film" for judgment by "the team at Google and USC", apparently part of a larger Google-funded research project with USC Engineering "to develop a computer science tool that could quickly and efficiently assess how women are represented in films"...

Fest reports noted that representatives of Google and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy appeared in a "Reel vs. Real Diversity" panel presentation at the fest, where the importance of diversity and science to President Obama were discussed, and the lack of qualified people to fill 500,000 U.S. tech jobs was blamed in part on how STEM careers have been presented in film and television... In a 2015 report on a Google-sponsored USC Viterbi School of Engineering MacGyver-themed event to promote women in engineering, USC reported that President Obama was kept briefed on efforts to challenge media's stereotypical portrayals of women. As for its own track record, Google recently updated its Diversity page, boasting that "21% of new hires in 2015 were women in tech, compared to 19% of our current population"....

46 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze/

    1. Re:Morons by sexconker · · Score: 4, Informative

      As usual, we can get the answer from The Simpsons:
      It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything.

    2. Re:Morons by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that is really quite simple to answer.

      While you keep the general masses divided over issues where they can point the finger at each other as being at fault..
      And while you can, as central government, say 'oh no! that is terrible! let me make some new regulations to help' without impacting your own plans..
      The sheeple are just so much easier to heard.

      Then throw in a nice big serving of 'mass media profit is maximised when content gets an emotional reaction' (just about any reaction will do).

      And not to mention a little 'my life is actually very easy and I feel inside I am achieving nothing, but if I yearn for a cause, I am moving the world!'

      Does that answer your question?

    3. Re:Morons by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze/

      Because you think the Bechdel test is a poor measure of female portrayal in movies, or because you don't think having substantial female characters is important?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re: Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure.

      Put away your clipboard and stop running a tally on dicks vs vaginas, and what color they are.

      If women want roles of substance, they will pay for those movies and capitalism will make it happen. To date they haven't, because it isn't what they actually want, so stop trying to force your fucking agenda down everyone's throats.

      Don't watch movies you don't like. The end. Fuck off.

    5. Re:Morons by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well, you don't like to see movies that cater just to women. Most women don't like to see movies that cater just to guys.

      Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re: Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about some male stereotype tests? Does this movie contain:

      A male action hero who isn't good looking?
      A male nerd who is good at talking to girls?
      A fat guy who isn't the comic relief?
      A cop who is happily married?
      A gay action hero?
      An asian guy who is a stud and doesn't know martial arts?

    7. Re: Morons by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope. It's a religion of and by itself. At the very least it has all the traits usually associated with religious nuttery.

      1) Claims the moral high ground.
      2) Claims to have the authority on truth.
      3) Presents no substantial proof to support their claims.
      4) Labels anyone daring to disagree as "evil".
      5) Is absolutely unfazed by any kind of logical argument.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Morons by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Did you notice that this story has been tagged "jews"? It's not Google that is trying to divide the world up or get an emotional reaction.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re: Morons by umghhh · · Score: 2

      I question this 'mostly for the men' part - there was a research done in Germany about that - they found out that most men actually do not watch the lesbian pr0n. They also hardly ever watch the movie till the end (and consequently never find out whether the cable guy actually fixed the cable). Lesbian pr0n may be watch predominantly be women and by a small group of men who are significantly different than the rest of the male population - some nerds would fall into the category I suppose.

    10. Re:Morons by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      I think the Bechdel test is interesting and fairly useful unless / until writers start putting scenes in specifically to satisfy the test. Its only one of many possible tests of course and doesn't by itself provide full information.

    11. Re: Morons by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you talking about SJWs, anti-SJWs, MRAs, anti-feminists, liberals, leftists, the alt-right or some other group? I can't tell from that description.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re: Morons by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      It was an autobiography.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re: Morons by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      If women want roles of substance, they will pay for those movies

      They do.

      and capitalism will make it happen.

      Oh yes, right X is impossible because the magic pixie dust of capitalism. In other news, every market is perfectly efficient, every consumer is perfectly rational and there is infinite liquidity.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  2. So THAT'S what he was doing during Benghazi... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    >> USC reported that President Obama was kept briefed on efforts to challenge media's stereotypical portrayals

    Aha - so THAT'S what he was doing when the terrorists overran Benghazi... :)

  3. Algorithm leaked by Time_Ngler · · Score: 5, Funny

    The only acceptable algorithm the program could give would be:

    10 PRINT "THIS SCRIPT PORTRAYS WOMEN POORLY."
    20 GOTO 10

  4. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm certain the results of this experiment will be 100% fair and unbiased in any way, and everyone will agree with the results and come to a greater understanding.

  5. How women are portrayed in movies by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    More beautiful than average, and more extreme in one trait or another.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:How women are portrayed in movies by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need to watch a lot of older movies. Men have been the butt of jokes forever. And there's certainly good reason for it, you make fun of the ones at top not at the bottom.

      Though in the past there were some strange oddities, amazingly sexist to very fair and balanced. I saw one about the first female president, a comedy about the husband trying to cope with being number two, and it ended when the president got pregnant and resigned, thus restoring order to the family.

    2. Re:How women are portrayed in movies by davide+marney · · Score: 2

      "Jane Got A Gun", a western starring Natalie Portman, is finally streaming on Netflix. Now, there's a move where the woman is not only more beautiful than average, but more extreme in every trait!

      Where [bang]! Is [bang]! My [bang]! CHILD [bang]!

      Yikes! She sure made me a believer in that character. Actually because Portman is really much more beautiful than average, they wrote that into the script and made it a plot element. Pretty smart.

      A very enjoyable movie. I don't care a whistle about gender equality in movies. I only care whether the movie is a good one.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  6. What data will it use, and what assumptions? by sandbagger · · Score: 2

    I am thinking of that recent Twitter AI that turned into a bigot in less than a day because -- lo and behold -- GIGO. If the output must be that all films must look like the demographic national survey rather than how people tend to cluster, you could end up with no end of weird conclusions and data skews. For example, a film with a minority person in a wheel chair in a leadership role may skew the data more than a gay man. Moreover, let us say for instance, the first film is crap and the second one is good, but because he's beaten up as the film's about gay bashing, then might the latter score worse because he's a portrayed as a victim?

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  7. So, how does this work exactly? by Derekloffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously? Trying to say X is a good portrayal of anything seems like a completely subjective thing to me and further practical impossible on any single element. Any portrayal can potentially be bad if it is overused, while at the same time any portrayal can potentially be fine so long as it is used in appropriate balance, but you can't determine either of things looking at an individual production. Likewise the standard for what exactly is a good or bad thing are basically totally subjective, especially in fiction. A complete cold bloodied murderer can be an excellent character, while a total altruist and general humanitarian can be a terrible character.

  8. Jobs Are Jails by alternative_right · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's time some women stopped bitching about not being in the same positions as men, and started asking whether men's positions are something they want to be in.

    And maybe at that point we can ask if we could find a better use of our time than endless jobs, shopping, commuting, television...

    Jobs are generally miserable, but the biggest misery is (1) you are judged on appearances (2) while doing work that is most of the time not essential or not really a positive contribution in any sense.

    It's like something Solzhenitsyn would come up with. The prisoners count beans and file TPS reports, and if they do not, they get half the ration of borscht for the day.

    --
    Alternative Right.
  9. More hyper-liberal stupidity by Sqreater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, let's have history-changing, gender-leveling gender-pandering required in every movie, just like in "Halt and Catch Fire". We CAN propagandize our way toward filling those 500,000 tech jobs. We just have to lie about reality strongly enough and long enough to change it to suit us.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  10. Bechdel Test by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All this talk about the Bechdel test reminds me of the Galbrush Paradox, a related mess that was codified during GamerGate. During a discussion of noted con artist Anita Sarkeesian -- who has managed to run TWO wildly successful Kickstarter scams stealing close to half a million dollars from rubes -- and her completely unobtainable standards for female characters:

    Absolutely not. If you can't tell a two bit con artist from one of your own, you really need to clean up your movement before you start 'suggesting' anything.

    But maybe you're just naive and don't understand the problem. Do you know why there's so many white male characters in video games? Especially leads? Because no one cares about them.

    A white male can be a lecherous drunk. A woman can't or it's sexist. Sexualizing women and what all. A white male can be a mentally disturbed soldier who's mind is unraveling as he walks through the hell of the modern battleeld. A woman can't or you're victimizing women and saying they're all crazy.

    Consider Guybrush Threepwood, start of the Monkey Island series. He's weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd and generally the last person you'd think of to even cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. He is abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated and generally made to feel unwanted.

    Now let's say Guybrush was a girl. We'll call her Galbrush. Galbrush is weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd and generally the last person you'd think of to even cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. She is abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated and generally made to feel unwanted.

    Now, you might notice that I've given the exact same description to both of these characters. But here's where things deviate. While no one cares if Guybrush takes a pounding for being, for lack of a better term, less than ideal pirate, Galbrush will be presumed to be discriminated against because of her gender. In fact, every hardship she will endure, though exactly the same as the hardships Guybrush endured, will be considered misogyny, rather than someone being ill suited to their desired calling.

    And that ending. She goes through ALL that trouble to help, let's call him Eli Marley, escape the evil clutches of the ghost piratess Le Chuck, it turns out he didn't even need her help and she even screwed up his plan to thwart Le Chuck. Why, it'd be a slap in the face to every woman who's ever picked up a controller. Not only is the protagonist inept, but apparently women make lousy villains too!

    And that's why Guybrush exists and Galbrush doesn't. Men can be comically inept halfwits. Women can't. Men can be flawed, tragic human beings. Women can't. And why? Because every single female character reects all women everywhere.

    The horrible truth ls you and Sarkeesian want to craft a box into which you can force every female character into. Some idiotic 'ideal'. Putting aside the stupidity of exchanging one unobtainable role model for women with another, this has the added problem of making all female characters exactly the same. And when all characters are exactly the same, that's boring And boring characters do not sell video games.

    And when applied to film, this is why the Bechdel test fails. Because writing female characters is an identity politics minefield, and trying to give them any character development other than talking about the characters you ARE allowed to take risks with or write as less than perfect gets you in trouble with idiots writing for The Mary Sue or Jezebel, who then rile up a lynch mob at you.

    1. Re:Bechdel Test by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Aside of her collecting money for movies she didn't make, and then ask for more dough? Nope.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Bechdel Test by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean these videos, the ones that more than fulfil her original Kickstarter promises, and all the stretch goals, and a bonus season 2 of shorter videos and game reviews?

      Tropes vs Women is one of the few times that a Kickstarter campaign massively exceeded its goals and then actually delivered.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Bechdel Test by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Aside of her collecting money for movies she didn't make, and then ask for more dough? Nope.

      Her kickstarter promised create five 10-20 minute videos. I believe that was bumped to 12 as more funding poured in. So far, she has produced 14 videos and it's still going. A bit of sampling suggests they're more like 20-30 minuted in length.

      IOW you're simply lying about her.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Bechdel Test by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She made some "tropes vs women" videos. Then had a kickstarter to make "Trops vs Women in videogames" initially promising 5 videos of length 10-20 minutes. After receiving $160,000 instead of the requested $6000, she bumped it up to 12 videos, of which she has made 14 of a longer length than promised and it appears that production is still continuing so there will likely be more.

      But anyway because you consider yourself a rationalist, I invite you to back up your assertion. Provide evidence. And I don't mean random partisan blog posts. You can see the kickstarter page. I bet the wayback machine has older copies too.

      If there's actual real evidence, not wishful thinking from the blogosphere, you can find it.

      You have made the claim of fraud, it is up to you to back up that claim with evidence.

      I don't however expect you to trouble yourself with such trivial matters of backing up allegations. I expect you to change tack or move the goalposts and start complaining about something else she did (e.g. having an opinion you dislike on the games themselves), leaving your unfounded claim of fraud just dangling there in the breeze.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  11. Re:Idiots Rule The World by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ugh...you're really part of that movement? Hay caramba...

    I mean I get it, I've had enough with trigger warnings, safe spaces, unfair campaigns, and the fact that Bruce Jenner can kill somebody, and then proceed to sue one of his victims, but once he gets a sex change suddenly he's a stunning and brave hero. It's all a big load of 100% grade A bullshit.

    This alt-right, and the fact that Europe now has 25% of the voting population favoring self-identified fascist parties, I think it's more of a reaction to the insane notion that you MUST hop aboard the pussy wagon and truly believe in all of the bullshit I just described above, and if you don't then you MUST be a Nazi IRL and we cast the out. Well, it kind of leaves very little choice, doesn't it?

    But, I'm not going to go repeat world war 2 (I mean shit, I still have yet to see what exactly the world's beef with the Jews is) however at the same time I'm going to disregard that notion of "they came for..." because I honestly think both sides of this issue are evil.

  12. It's not Bechdel - it's puritan test by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media
    Problem

    Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.

    Soo...
    Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil.
    Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.

    Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image".
    It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:It's not Bechdel - it's puritan test by denzacar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media
      Problem

      Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.

      Soo...
      Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil.
      Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.

      Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image".
      It's the only way to be sure.

      And a special "Well hello there - AGAIN!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above.
      We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste. Plenty more where that came from.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    2. Re:It's not Bechdel - it's puritan test by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Read it again. They don't say "female skin is evil".

      Generally speaking there are lots of diverse roles for men in movies. All sizes, good looking, average, and they are generally not required to be provided some eye candy for a presumed straight male audience.

      On the other hand it really looks like to succeed as a woman in Hollywood you have to be hot and willing to flaunt your sexuality. Nothing wrong with doing that per-se, but when it becomes a virtual requirement...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:It's not Bechdel - it's puritan test by Megol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media
      Problem

      Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.

      Soo...
      Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil.
      Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.

      Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image".
      It's the only way to be sure.

      No. Example: a scene where a woman is dressing not done in a sexually suggestive manner isn't a problem. I wouldn't think a scene where a woman breastfeeds a baby with boobs and nipple(s) showing to be a problem either but the US puritans do. I don't think full nudity for either men or women is a problem and not even explicit sex scenes (if not done in an obvious pornographic manner).

      But almost always sexualizing the female body in combination with the choice of female actors (looks are everything with a few exceptions) is a problem as it does cause body image problems of females - this is well documented. The same isn't true for men as looks are less important in the choice of actors and sexualization of the body including semi-nude and nude scenes are less common.

      How about applying reason before going out on a rant? Otherwise you just contribute to the dummheit.

  13. "A software" by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on, editors, really? Shall I say to my friends, "Today I saw an interesting news on slashdot."

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  14. Seriously, we have the government we deserve by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Russia has INVADED and IS OCCUPYING a neighboring country (one they laughingly signed a note to protect, no less).
    China is essentially playing Age of Empires 2 in the South China sea, grabbing territory by building watchtowers and not giving a fuck about what anyone thinks.
    The EU is disintegrating as people start to realize manually bolting countries together doesn't actually make them act like a single country.
    Our economy is a sham based on completely phony numbers, contrived to enrich a tiny cadre of elites that drift in and out of power (always making more money with each step) like minglers at a garden party.
    Our media is essentially a giant cumrag, soaked and dripping with the lowest-common-denominator vulgarity and venality.
    We have one candidate for president that is a COMPLETE ASS and a know nothing buffoon who's like a cartoon character of himself, while the other candidate is corrupt to the very soul of her being, if she HAD a soul.

    And what we're worrying about is whether films fairly represent women?

    Where the fuck are the Visigoths to come climbing over OUR walls? Seriously, it's about time. If Rome was like this near the end, they probably welcomed it.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Seriously, we have the government we deserve by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      We are allowed to worry about more than one thing at a time.

  15. Re: Idiots Rule The World by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    No, I'm not looking for a middle ground between information and disinformation. THAT is the fallacy. Rather, I'm looking for a middle ground between being a pussy and being a dick without resorting to being an asshole.

  16. Re:Off the rails by speedplane · · Score: 2

    here is the rub: Hollywood depiction of women is, in the aggregate, whatever the fuck the movie watching wants it be

    Not at all, you're greatly underestimating the influence of the major movie studios. Americans fork out their $12 tickets and watch pretty much whatever Hollywood shoves down their throat. Assuming Hollywood creates movies based on a democratic and unbiased worldview of the aggregate U.S. viewing public is incredibly naive.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  17. Interesting to quantify if possible by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would be very interesting to find a way to quantify bias in media. I don't know if its possible, but it sounds hard. OTOH, self-driving cars sounded hard as well and they seem to be becoming a reality.

    Last time I posted a req for a high level RF engineer, I got ~100 applications from men and 2 from women. If only for selfish reasons I'd like more women learning the skills that I need.

    I've been working in a high tech field for a quarter century now and I do see a problem the way women are treated in many places. The problems are not universal, and there is a lot of variety, but it exists. It difficult to separate cause and effect but more information would be helpful.

  18. Re: Idiots Rule The World by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Imagine going a decade to the past and telling someone that voting Trump is the lesser evil. His response would probably be "Who's he running against, Cthulhu?"

    And all you could do is nod slowly...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Welcome to capitalism, bitches by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    It's simple as that: If movies with women in lead roles attract audiences, they will be made. If not, well, then not.

    A few might have heard about the Ghostbusters reboot. Well? How did it fare? Erh... yeah. It did mostly recover its production cost. Did it recover its total cost including advertising? Probably not. Will it ever? It looks doubtful.

    In the end, what counts is the bottom line. Michael Bay makes horrible movies. Scripts that fit on a legal page, and since film isn't being developed anymore, you can't even make that joke about character development in his movies anymore. They are, by and large, crap. But they sell. Flashy effects and gimmicks is what the audience wants and that's what the audience gets, and his movies are one success after the next.

    Like it, hate it, in the end, what matters is just the bottom line. Not the message, not the lasting value, not how much you wish to "empower" or "liberate" anyone or anything, people don't give a shit about this. They want to be entertained when they go into a movie.

    And movie studios don't give a shit about your message or agenda either. They want your movie to make money.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. And what if they find there is no problem? by inhuman_4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The central problem with projects like this is the result is already determined. They've already decided that movies are horribly sexist before the first line of code was written. Think about it. What if, after detailed analysis, it was determined that there is no problem, that women and men are treated roughly equal? What happens then? It can't happen, it wouldn't be acceptable. The funding would dry up, and they would be shutdown. It would be like the NRA releasing a study saying guns are bad. And good luck getting funding in the future, if you can't produce results that affirm what we "know to be true" then clearly you are a terrible researcher.

  21. Re:Off the rails by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

    Because here is the rub: Hollywood depiction of women is, in the aggregate, whatever the fuck the movie watching wants it be

    No it's not. The Hollywood depiction of...everything...is whatever the writers and studio execs want it to be. For a long, long time the values of Hollywood and the values of the people in the flyover states have not been congruent at all. In Hollywood Christianity is bad, gays are good, blacks are doctors, the criminals are white, and everybody screws on the first date and no problems result from this. That ain't how they do things in Oklahoma.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  22. Re: Idiots Rule The World by skegg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now that's a phallucy !

  23. Re: Idiots Rule The World by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    How so? The other choice is at least as bad, and just perpetuates the problem.

    The best choice, IMO, is to vote third-party; if enough people did that, they wouldn't be "third parties" any more. But I can understand someone voting for Trump just to shake things up like a bull in a china shop.

    What we really need is an all-new system that allows multiple parties to exist, enabled by a voting system that supports this (i.e., anything besides first-past-the-post).