Covert spying on citizens...disrespecting privacy...I'm not sure why you don't see these as the same thing. Nice that you seem to think that as long as the privacy is invaded by a different country, but then shared, well, that's okay (at least with Five Eyes).
The NSA wholesale spies on citizens of the US. Period.
This is like saying that the democrats want to seize control of corporations by mandating regulations like "can't dump garbage in the nearby river" or "not paying workers slave wages".
Trying to pretend that the far left doesn't exist isn't going to accomplish anything. Yes, the term does get overused and is used incorrectly a lot; doesn't mean it's not a valid label (though I think "regressive left" is better).
This is certainly a band-aid and doesn't address the root of the problem, but I don't see how it adds to the problem. How is it "the complete opposite"? It fixes one small area, but at least that area is fixed.
The real root of this problem is the government's protection of corporations via IP laws.
Agreed. But I imagine taking that on will be a gigantic challenge, with many more players coming out against it.
This might just be "chipping away at the problem". Start with stuff like farm equipment. If there's success there, maybe it can be broadened into other areas.
"Associated with" nazis, or "frequented by" nazis?
Doesn't really matter. I don't agree with nazi ideology, but it's the right to associate with whom you choose. Everyone gets free speech, or it's not actually free speech.
Do you agree that it is the nazi part that is the problem?
Not anymore than any other speech out there. I see all kinds of hate for all kinds of groups out there. It's fine until it gets to the territory of calling for violence. So groups are free to hate on other groups. I think it's stupid and moronic to hate someone for having an immutable trait, but, that's part of freedom; the freedom to be moronic and stupid.
Honestly, you sound like a nazi trying to pretend to be a liberal, rather than a liberal.
Oh? Can you show me what values I share with nazis? I didn't know a nazi value was "everyone should have free speech"; that's news to me. Does that make the founders of the US also nazis as free speech was a value they believed in?
I must also be a very odd nazi with believing and supporting things like equality, same sex marriage, immigration reform, social safety nets based on class (for everyone, but mainly targeting the poor), single payer healthcare...those are nazi values?
"Associated with" nazis, or "frequented by" nazis?
Doesn't really matter. I don't agree with nazi ideology, but it's the right to associate with whom you choose. Everyone gets free speech, or it's not actually free speech.
Do you agree that it is the nazi part that is the problem?
Not anymore than any other speech out there. I see all kinds of hate for all kinds of groups out there. It's fine until it gets to the territory of calling for violence. So groups are free to hate on other groups. I think it's stupid and moronic to hate someone for having an immutable trait, but, that's part of freedom; the freedom to be moronic and stupid.
Honestly, you sound like a nazi trying to pretend to be a liberal, rather than a liberal.
Oh? Can you show me what values I share with nazis? I didn't know a nazi value was "everyone should have free speech"; that's news to me. Does that make the founders of the US also nazis as free speech was a value they believed in?
I think the problem is that who they want on their platform is not codified up front. I'm liberal, and I'm rather disgusted by how many people are thrown off these platforms. And then anytime someone comes along and tries to make one that's "free speech" based, it's immediately associated with nazis or other bad elements.
If Twitter wants their platform to be for far-left ideologues only, okay. But say that up front.
Passion of the Christ is a good example. Though I can't specifically remember a lot around it, I do remember Gibson's remarks, and I can't imagine the Jewish community was really happy with it. But it's hard to say. The audiences that have heard and how they respond to Brie Larson's comments probably don't have a significant crossover with the audiences that heard and how they respond to Mel Gibon's comments. I imagine PotC had an older, less tech-savvy audience. But it's just a guess.
40k does seem like a high a number, but it is Marvel so there's a lot of press around it. Difficult to say. Was it just a few people making multiple posts? Possible. But also possible that a lot of them were people just not happy with Brie Larson's comments.
So, punish the thousands of other people involved in the movie because you don't like an opinion voiced by one person, who isn't even involved in a creative role?
No one is obligated to see this movie. Regardless of whoever worked on this movie, they are not entitled to mine or anyone else's money. I'm against racism and sexism, and I will do my best to avoid works where those sort of values are celebrated. There are nuances around this (what exactly was said, what was done, the attitude involved), but I'm cool with not seeing Captain Marvel because of this.
And you hit the "Well you might not be outraged by this trivial nonsense, but I am because I'm morally superior to you", SJW attitude perfectly.
Sexism and racism may be meaningless to you, but it's not for a lot of people.
Also, nope. I'm not saying that no one should be allowed to see this (which is an SJW thing). Anyone is free to see it, free of judgement from me. I will judge people on cheering on Brie Larson's comments, but that's it as far as the movie. Not exactly an SJW attitude.
Someone may have organized something somewhere. I haven't seen anything that said "go out and give bad/negative reviews for Captain Marvel", but I'm sure someone has. Most of the articles/videos I've seen have mostly just reported on Brie Larson continuing to put her foot in her mouth. When someone makes sexist and racist comments, are people supposed to stay silent? People are voicing their opinions.
You're basically taking the stance that so many companies are these days. Companies like eBay and Netflix want to sanitize reviews so that people can't leave negative remarks or feedback. You can't leave negative reviews on eBay anymore. Netflix no longer has their star-rating system. And while it seems you can still give a negative review on Rotten Tomatoes, they're moving down the same path with the changes they've made.
Regressives review bomb for (usually) different reasons. Sometimes it's when someone makes a bigoted remark, but more often it's something far less benign. They are free to not consume that media, just like people are free to not see Captain Marvel.
Shattering the record of the metric 4 times over points to a campaign, not genuine interest (or disinterest) in the movie.
That's the way things work today. A piece of media is no longer just a piece of media. The people involved (like Brie Larson) around it have massive influence, and people are more conscientious about where their dollars go. In terms of SJWs, I think there's a bit of difference between not wanting to support someone that makes sexist and racist comments, and then someone who makes something where the women have big breasts. You may have some people that want the movie changed, but this seems way more related to Brie Larson's comments rather than any actual content of the movie.
If something happened like Quentin Tarantino came out and said he wants to hear fewer women's voices, I would expect a similar reaction.
She didn't say that directly, but that's the feeling that came from her words. Additionally, repeat her phrases, but substitute any other group out for "white men" and see if the same message would fly. Hint: it wouldn't.
So, the same as some SJW's overreaction to some stupid thing someone said? Two wrongs making... tens of thousands of meaningless comments?
That's up to you. Many people are voting to not support someone that has sexist and racist views. You are free to support anyone that is racist or sexist; to many people, knowing that taint is behind the movie is a huge turn-off.
Sexism and racism may be meaningless to you, but it's not for a lot of people.
I can't think of a single instance where an actors personal beliefs affected my desire to see something they were in. And I certainly can't think of any stupid thing an actor has said that made me lose my mind and act like some brain dead 20y/o SJW.
That's your value system, and that's fine. Lots of people separate the artist and their work, and lots of people don't, and tons of variations in between. Artists and their work being separated or not is not an SJW thing. There is no "correct" answer to which way of thinking people should follow.
Slashdot Mirror
Covert spying on citizens...disrespecting privacy...I'm not sure why you don't see these as the same thing. Nice that you seem to think that as long as the privacy is invaded by a different country, but then shared, well, that's okay (at least with Five Eyes).
The NSA wholesale spies on citizens of the US. Period.
So, nope! No strawman.
Do you have an actual refutation of Fives Eyes or the NSA? Or are you just going to quote an inaccurate logical fallacy?
Five Eyes? NSA? Not a strawman.
*musical note* Just don't look, just don't look...
That's what I came to gripe about. It's bullshit.
Strawman. Plenty of liberals don't want to see him rot in jail.
Fucked up when exposing the truth is seen as collaboration with neo nazis. Projection perhaps?
This is like saying that the democrats want to seize control of corporations by mandating regulations like "can't dump garbage in the nearby river" or "not paying workers slave wages".
Well sure. I mean, you have to make sure that executives are being appropriately compensated. Look how much someone like Patrick Soderlund gets:
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-gave-outgoing-exec-patrick-soderlund-a-20-milli/1100-6461170/
Soderlund's employment agreement also netted him $46.2 million in stock-based awards for the fiscal year.
I know not every company is EA, but Jesus. I felt he was pretty horrible for the company, so knowing he got this much...well, it's EA as usual.
Trying to pretend that the far left doesn't exist isn't going to accomplish anything. Yes, the term does get overused and is used incorrectly a lot; doesn't mean it's not a valid label (though I think "regressive left" is better).
I think it's pretty clear. Stuff like child porn and "hey, let's go to so-and-so's house and fuck them up". Not really arbitrary.
This is certainly a band-aid and doesn't address the root of the problem, but I don't see how it adds to the problem. How is it "the complete opposite"? It fixes one small area, but at least that area is fixed.
The real root of this problem is the government's protection of corporations via IP laws.
Agreed. But I imagine taking that on will be a gigantic challenge, with many more players coming out against it.
This might just be "chipping away at the problem". Start with stuff like farm equipment. If there's success there, maybe it can be broadened into other areas.
A complete guess on my part, though.
This comment puts you around the same level as a nazi. You're free to say it, but you're disgusting. Just like a nazi.
"Associated with" nazis, or "frequented by" nazis?
Doesn't really matter. I don't agree with nazi ideology, but it's the right to associate with whom you choose. Everyone gets free speech, or it's not actually free speech.
Do you agree that it is the nazi part that is the problem?
Not anymore than any other speech out there. I see all kinds of hate for all kinds of groups out there. It's fine until it gets to the territory of calling for violence. So groups are free to hate on other groups. I think it's stupid and moronic to hate someone for having an immutable trait, but, that's part of freedom; the freedom to be moronic and stupid.
Honestly, you sound like a nazi trying to pretend to be a liberal, rather than a liberal.
Oh? Can you show me what values I share with nazis? I didn't know a nazi value was "everyone should have free speech"; that's news to me. Does that make the founders of the US also nazis as free speech was a value they believed in?
I must also be a very odd nazi with believing and supporting things like equality, same sex marriage, immigration reform, social safety nets based on class (for everyone, but mainly targeting the poor), single payer healthcare...those are nazi values?
"Associated with" nazis, or "frequented by" nazis?
Doesn't really matter. I don't agree with nazi ideology, but it's the right to associate with whom you choose. Everyone gets free speech, or it's not actually free speech.
Do you agree that it is the nazi part that is the problem?
Not anymore than any other speech out there. I see all kinds of hate for all kinds of groups out there. It's fine until it gets to the territory of calling for violence. So groups are free to hate on other groups. I think it's stupid and moronic to hate someone for having an immutable trait, but, that's part of freedom; the freedom to be moronic and stupid.
Honestly, you sound like a nazi trying to pretend to be a liberal, rather than a liberal.
Oh? Can you show me what values I share with nazis? I didn't know a nazi value was "everyone should have free speech"; that's news to me. Does that make the founders of the US also nazis as free speech was a value they believed in?
This. It's a western game. What was expected?
I think the problem is that who they want on their platform is not codified up front. I'm liberal, and I'm rather disgusted by how many people are thrown off these platforms. And then anytime someone comes along and tries to make one that's "free speech" based, it's immediately associated with nazis or other bad elements.
If Twitter wants their platform to be for far-left ideologues only, okay. But say that up front.
Passion of the Christ is a good example. Though I can't specifically remember a lot around it, I do remember Gibson's remarks, and I can't imagine the Jewish community was really happy with it. But it's hard to say. The audiences that have heard and how they respond to Brie Larson's comments probably don't have a significant crossover with the audiences that heard and how they respond to Mel Gibon's comments. I imagine PotC had an older, less tech-savvy audience. But it's just a guess.
40k does seem like a high a number, but it is Marvel so there's a lot of press around it. Difficult to say. Was it just a few people making multiple posts? Possible. But also possible that a lot of them were people just not happy with Brie Larson's comments.
So, punish the thousands of other people involved in the movie because you don't like an opinion voiced by one person, who isn't even involved in a creative role?
No one is obligated to see this movie. Regardless of whoever worked on this movie, they are not entitled to mine or anyone else's money. I'm against racism and sexism, and I will do my best to avoid works where those sort of values are celebrated. There are nuances around this (what exactly was said, what was done, the attitude involved), but I'm cool with not seeing Captain Marvel because of this.
And you hit the "Well you might not be outraged by this trivial nonsense, but I am because I'm morally superior to you", SJW attitude perfectly.
Sexism and racism may be meaningless to you, but it's not for a lot of people.
Also, nope. I'm not saying that no one should be allowed to see this (which is an SJW thing). Anyone is free to see it, free of judgement from me. I will judge people on cheering on Brie Larson's comments, but that's it as far as the movie. Not exactly an SJW attitude.
You'll have to show me which movies had the lead actor saying, "I want to hear from fewer (insert racial or gendered group of choice)".
So I guess movies with controversial actors often get on order of forty four thousand ratings before their release?
Probably depends on what those actors say. Also, more people are being careful what they say so as not to enrage the PC mob.
Funny, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or is it just when white males get offended? Is that demographic particularly sensitive?
Try that sentence again but replace it with any other group. All this says to me is your opinion means nothing, based on bigoted logic.
Someone may have organized something somewhere. I haven't seen anything that said "go out and give bad/negative reviews for Captain Marvel", but I'm sure someone has. Most of the articles/videos I've seen have mostly just reported on Brie Larson continuing to put her foot in her mouth. When someone makes sexist and racist comments, are people supposed to stay silent? People are voicing their opinions.
You're basically taking the stance that so many companies are these days. Companies like eBay and Netflix want to sanitize reviews so that people can't leave negative remarks or feedback. You can't leave negative reviews on eBay anymore. Netflix no longer has their star-rating system. And while it seems you can still give a negative review on Rotten Tomatoes, they're moving down the same path with the changes they've made.
Regressives review bomb for (usually) different reasons. Sometimes it's when someone makes a bigoted remark, but more often it's something far less benign. They are free to not consume that media, just like people are free to not see Captain Marvel.
Shattering the record of the metric 4 times over points to a campaign, not genuine interest (or disinterest) in the movie.
That's the way things work today. A piece of media is no longer just a piece of media. The people involved (like Brie Larson) around it have massive influence, and people are more conscientious about where their dollars go. In terms of SJWs, I think there's a bit of difference between not wanting to support someone that makes sexist and racist comments, and then someone who makes something where the women have big breasts. You may have some people that want the movie changed, but this seems way more related to Brie Larson's comments rather than any actual content of the movie.
If something happened like Quentin Tarantino came out and said he wants to hear fewer women's voices, I would expect a similar reaction.
She didn't say that directly, but that's the feeling that came from her words. Additionally, repeat her phrases, but substitute any other group out for "white men" and see if the same message would fly. Hint: it wouldn't.
None of those movies had the lead come out and say that they wanted to hear from fewer white males. I think that's one of the key indicators.
So, the same as some SJW's overreaction to some stupid thing someone said? Two wrongs making... tens of thousands of meaningless comments?
That's up to you. Many people are voting to not support someone that has sexist and racist views. You are free to support anyone that is racist or sexist; to many people, knowing that taint is behind the movie is a huge turn-off.
Sexism and racism may be meaningless to you, but it's not for a lot of people.
I can't think of a single instance where an actors personal beliefs affected my desire to see something they were in. And I certainly can't think of any stupid thing an actor has said that made me lose my mind and act like some brain dead 20y/o SJW.
That's your value system, and that's fine. Lots of people separate the artist and their work, and lots of people don't, and tons of variations in between. Artists and their work being separated or not is not an SJW thing. There is no "correct" answer to which way of thinking people should follow.