Well, the other big problem with the Batman and Superman characters in that movie was all the murder. Snyder really gets why people like Batman...the way he indiscriminately murders all the criminals, and same as in Man of Steel, the way in which Superman gives absolutely zero fucks about murdering lots of people while pursuing his own political agenda. Lots and lots of murder.
I think Zack Snyder is some kind of sociopath. He made 300, and Watchmen, and those were great. Looked amazing. Probably because they were based on graphic novels and so all he had to do was follow the storyboard frame for frame, and he knows how to put together a scene. But then I saw "Sucker Punch" thinking "Oh, it's a Zack Snyder movie, this should be great!" And it turns out Snyder's idea of men and women is that all men are horrific rapists and that "strong women" are...delusional whores who use their sex holes to murder them or something? It was awful. After that my friends banned me from choosing the film on movie night.
And then Man of Steel and BvS, with Superman murdering everyone and not giving a shit about any of the innocent people getting hurt. If you give Snyder a storyboard with real characters already in them he'll make an amazing looking movie, but if he actually has to understand how people think and interact...no.There's something wrong with Snyder.
Kids would love that shit. And there's already like seven books so they could milk it for a long time. That one seems like easy money to me. Not as big as Harry Potter but pretty damn big.
The guy said: "I’ve seen some great movies with really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores,” I'll ask you since I can't ask him. Like what? What low scoring movies (and we're talking below 30% on RT) did you actually like?
Yes, I would also like to know what...fucking Brett Ratner...thinks is "underrated." Besides his own studio trash. Sure, there are movies that are "so bad they're good" but those are rare, and they deserve their bad ratings. They're just entertaining despite being so poorly rated. So I don't want to hear from Brett about the camp movies that score a 5% but are really entertaining because holy shit I can't believe anyone made this, I want to know what scored a 20% that he thinks really should be up in the 80s.
But in this context OP was selling socialism as a cure for the problem of Americans scrounging for $5. We're not talking about social services here. How are social services going to solve the problem of people busting ass for $5?
Your point would be valid if the topic were, say, Americans having shitty health care and so you want government to provide some of those services. But when the problem is "Americans don't have jobs so some are sucking dick for $5" and you say "time for socialism!" you're not talking "single-payer health care" socialism but "workers of the world unite" socialism, so my criticism is valid.
Seriously, is there an actual reason for this that isn't corruption or some kind of libertarian ideological nutcasery?
The Republicans think the FTC should be regulating what businesses sell what information to others, not the FCC. The tail end of the Obama FCC said "naw, we're going to do that instead."
That's the actual point of contention, but "Republicans gonna tell everybody about your midget porn for cash" is better clicks.
Americans have to get over their fear of socialism and accept that, all other things being equal, a community that works together is stronger and more prosperous than one that does not.
Like the USSR? Like Venezuela? You're completely wrong. All socialism does is replace a wealthy class that buys political power with a political class that steals wealth. And rapaciously. The end result is everyone (except our political class) begging for $5.
... or you could just have a society with sane and decent regulation.
[snip]
Come to think of it, it seems that being decent to your fellow human beings is on the recommended list of just about every religion. Imagine that, perhaps it is just a good idea?
Wait, so when I die, God judges my soul based on how decent my government's regulations are? Vote your way to heaven I guess.
I find that claims that white people are as frequently the objects of out and out hate speech tend to be pretty hyperbolic.
I think you just don't notice. One of the critical functions of our brains is making most of the world irrelevant. There's an infinite number of facts in any room, from the patterns of scuff marks on the floor to the discolorations in the paint on the walls etc etc. If you noticed all those things you're probably on drugs or brain damaged and incapable of functioning. So you just don't notice shit that isn't either a tool to help you achieve your objectives or an obstacle in your way. Somebody saying "kill white people" doesn't register as obstacle for you. But you absolutely have leftist celebs like Lena Dunham saying we need to "end white males" or Sarah Silverman going on about how she's glad the Jews killed Jesus and she'd do it again. These are not nice things to say. They do not help me achieve my goal of racial and religious harmony, so I notice them. On the other hand if someone said "fuck Judaism and we need to end Jewish females," boy ears would perk up. If you notice one and not the other it's because you fundamentally don't find the idea of eliminating whites offensive.
Sure, those are all interesting stories, but they don't really have anything to do with this. There's no political reason to lie about a battery technology. It either works (great!) or there's a flaw in the design, in which case "oops, now we know better."
No I'm giving free money to the gifted. There's no point in putting someone who fails through university. All that does is result in crap graduates, a devalued degree, and create a general demand for even more education or in the worst case create a general demand for a degree that is not needed. This forces people to get degrees for basic jobs that don't need them.
When you enact this system, the result will be little money (proportionally) for blacks and latinos, and more money (proportionally) for Jews, asians, and whites. Al Sharpton and Van Jones and Maxine Waters will be calling you a Nazi so fast your head will spin. Your solution is politically impossible while the race baiting left exists.
but since some people seem to believe that the First Amendment protection of speech somehow should be imposed on private companies' Internet-facing content
That's not the argument. No one is saying companies should be forced to comply with the first amendment. "Free speech" as a principle exists outside of the Constitution...it's the shared cultural value that the Constitution seeks to protect. The cultural value came first, then the legal protection. This is how descriptive legal systems like english common law came to be.
The point is that these online platforms like Twitter don't hold this cultural value. That's okay, I guess, you don't have to. But they claim to, while saying they're only denying a platform for "hate speech," but this is bullshit too since they never punish anyone for saying "killing white people." That's pretty damn hateful.
They're not for free speech, they're not against "hate" on principle, they're just partisans.
I said Asians in the US. The smart asians came to the US. Asians in Asian aren't that smart. I also specified Ashkenazi Jews. They're the far north tribe that was in Poland, Russia etc.
The data would fit closer to a curve of how devoted that demographic is to Christianity.?
What is correlation, and how is it related to causation.
Perhaps you could try to argue ham-handed is better than nothing.
Yes, that's essentially the fundamental premise of the Trump movement. What we have is multinational corporations that own the politicians and 90% of the media. There's some dispute between the interests of citizens and the interests of multinationals/foreigners, and on every single issue the politicians take the side of the foreigners/multinationals and then the media propagandizes the public as to why this is somehow "moral." It's really not, it's just the financial interest of the elite. What a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" should do is say "no, fuck you" to the foreigners and multinationals. This is all Trump is doing and it's got the media, the left, and the GOP establishment apoplectic.
Illegal immigration is bad for citizens/workers, good for business/foreigners. No, fuck foreigners, deport illegals.
Shady muslims bad for citizens, good for foreigners. No, fuck them, ban terrorist muslims.
Trade deals bad for workers, good for business/China. No, fuck China, protect workers.
As I've mentioned in nearby posts there are more sane ways to reduce illegals (more border guards and biz audits) but neither T nor GOP are interested in anything that offends their biz donors & friends. They'd rather F with families than offend the precious 1%. Typical GOP.
Trump has already added thousands of BP and ICE agents, and nationwide E-Verify is part of Trump's immigration plan that was on his campaign website (the site has since been updated for the administration rather than the campaign or I'd link it). So one of the things you recommended Trump has already done and the other is part of his campaign promises, but that requires legislative action and right now Congress is doing other things. We'll see what happens.
By the way, a wall isn't going to stop drug trafficking. It's pretty easy to get drugs under or over a wall. A 7 year old can do it.
But a wall with sensors and more BP agents will definitely help, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the other big problem with the Batman and Superman characters in that movie was all the murder. Snyder really gets why people like Batman...the way he indiscriminately murders all the criminals, and same as in Man of Steel, the way in which Superman gives absolutely zero fucks about murdering lots of people while pursuing his own political agenda. Lots and lots of murder.
I think Zack Snyder is some kind of sociopath. He made 300, and Watchmen, and those were great. Looked amazing. Probably because they were based on graphic novels and so all he had to do was follow the storyboard frame for frame, and he knows how to put together a scene. But then I saw "Sucker Punch" thinking "Oh, it's a Zack Snyder movie, this should be great!" And it turns out Snyder's idea of men and women is that all men are horrific rapists and that "strong women" are...delusional whores who use their sex holes to murder them or something? It was awful. After that my friends banned me from choosing the film on movie night.
And then Man of Steel and BvS, with Superman murdering everyone and not giving a shit about any of the innocent people getting hurt. If you give Snyder a storyboard with real characters already in them he'll make an amazing looking movie, but if he actually has to understand how people think and interact...no .There's something wrong with Snyder.
Novik's Temeraire?
Kids would love that shit. And there's already like seven books so they could milk it for a long time. That one seems like easy money to me. Not as big as Harry Potter but pretty damn big.
The Fifth Element had very little action by today's standards. There was really only the one big fight scene.
The guy said: "I’ve seen some great movies with really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores,” I'll ask you since I can't ask him. Like what? What low scoring movies (and we're talking below 30% on RT) did you actually like?
Yes, I would also like to know what...fucking Brett Ratner...thinks is "underrated." Besides his own studio trash. Sure, there are movies that are "so bad they're good" but those are rare, and they deserve their bad ratings. They're just entertaining despite being so poorly rated. So I don't want to hear from Brett about the camp movies that score a 5% but are really entertaining because holy shit I can't believe anyone made this, I want to know what scored a 20% that he thinks really should be up in the 80s.
But in this context OP was selling socialism as a cure for the problem of Americans scrounging for $5. We're not talking about social services here. How are social services going to solve the problem of people busting ass for $5?
Your point would be valid if the topic were, say, Americans having shitty health care and so you want government to provide some of those services. But when the problem is "Americans don't have jobs so some are sucking dick for $5" and you say "time for socialism!" you're not talking "single-payer health care" socialism but "workers of the world unite" socialism, so my criticism is valid.
Was your privacy sold away before 3 months ago?
More like norther European countries.
Oh, you're a white supremacist nazi now?
Seriously, is there an actual reason for this that isn't corruption or some kind of libertarian ideological nutcasery?
The Republicans think the FTC should be regulating what businesses sell what information to others, not the FCC. The tail end of the Obama FCC said "naw, we're going to do that instead."
That's the actual point of contention, but "Republicans gonna tell everybody about your midget porn for cash" is better clicks.
They really needed a "BLANK!? Don't you worry about blank, let me worry about blank!"
Americans have to get over their fear of socialism and accept that, all other things being equal, a community that works together is stronger and more prosperous than one that does not.
Like the USSR? Like Venezuela? You're completely wrong. All socialism does is replace a wealthy class that buys political power with a political class that steals wealth. And rapaciously. The end result is everyone (except our political class) begging for $5.
... or you could just have a society with sane and decent regulation.
[snip]
Come to think of it, it seems that being decent to your fellow human beings is on the recommended list of just about every religion. Imagine that, perhaps it is just a good idea?
Wait, so when I die, God judges my soul based on how decent my government's regulations are? Vote your way to heaven I guess.
"You're wrong because you're a moron" is an ad hominem.
"You're wrong, moron" is an insult.
This country (with no hostile neighbors) will cease to exist if it doesn't spend more on war than the next 7 most militaristic countries combined?
Look at the naive little baby who fell for the "oh we're Canada we're so nice and so sorry about everything no threat here!" act.
And because the current administration doesn't believe in climate change they are defunding the satellite imaging that is used to gather proof for it.
But I thought it was already settled science? Why do we need to keep pouring federal money into programs to tell us something already settled?
You add some angular momentum. That's the way 9 out of 10 physicists prefer to get their spin.
Holy shit I'd really like to talk to that 10th physicist!
I find that claims that white people are as frequently the objects of out and out hate speech tend to be pretty hyperbolic.
I think you just don't notice. One of the critical functions of our brains is making most of the world irrelevant. There's an infinite number of facts in any room, from the patterns of scuff marks on the floor to the discolorations in the paint on the walls etc etc. If you noticed all those things you're probably on drugs or brain damaged and incapable of functioning. So you just don't notice shit that isn't either a tool to help you achieve your objectives or an obstacle in your way. Somebody saying "kill white people" doesn't register as obstacle for you. But you absolutely have leftist celebs like Lena Dunham saying we need to "end white males" or Sarah Silverman going on about how she's glad the Jews killed Jesus and she'd do it again. These are not nice things to say. They do not help me achieve my goal of racial and religious harmony, so I notice them. On the other hand if someone said "fuck Judaism and we need to end Jewish females," boy ears would perk up. If you notice one and not the other it's because you fundamentally don't find the idea of eliminating whites offensive.
Those "places in the western world" don't have a permanent racial grievance industry.
The idea works in theory. It does not work in practice because the demographics of the USA are not the demographics of Norway.
Sure, those are all interesting stories, but they don't really have anything to do with this. There's no political reason to lie about a battery technology. It either works (great!) or there's a flaw in the design, in which case "oops, now we know better."
No I'm giving free money to the gifted. There's no point in putting someone who fails through university. All that does is result in crap graduates, a devalued degree, and create a general demand for even more education or in the worst case create a general demand for a degree that is not needed. This forces people to get degrees for basic jobs that don't need them.
When you enact this system, the result will be little money (proportionally) for blacks and latinos, and more money (proportionally) for Jews, asians, and whites. Al Sharpton and Van Jones and Maxine Waters will be calling you a Nazi so fast your head will spin. Your solution is politically impossible while the race baiting left exists.
Correction: saying "kill white people."
But it's nationalistic, right? So nationalist, and socialist? Somebody should start a political party like that.
but since some people seem to believe that the First Amendment protection of speech somehow should be imposed on private companies' Internet-facing content
That's not the argument. No one is saying companies should be forced to comply with the first amendment. "Free speech" as a principle exists outside of the Constitution...it's the shared cultural value that the Constitution seeks to protect. The cultural value came first, then the legal protection. This is how descriptive legal systems like english common law came to be.
The point is that these online platforms like Twitter don't hold this cultural value. That's okay, I guess, you don't have to. But they claim to, while saying they're only denying a platform for "hate speech," but this is bullshit too since they never punish anyone for saying "killing white people." That's pretty damn hateful.
They're not for free speech, they're not against "hate" on principle, they're just partisans.
I said Asians in the US. The smart asians came to the US. Asians in Asian aren't that smart. I also specified Ashkenazi Jews. They're the far north tribe that was in Poland, Russia etc.
The data would fit closer to a curve of how devoted that demographic is to Christianity.?
What is correlation, and how is it related to causation.
Perhaps you could try to argue ham-handed is better than nothing.
Yes, that's essentially the fundamental premise of the Trump movement. What we have is multinational corporations that own the politicians and 90% of the media. There's some dispute between the interests of citizens and the interests of multinationals/foreigners, and on every single issue the politicians take the side of the foreigners/multinationals and then the media propagandizes the public as to why this is somehow "moral." It's really not, it's just the financial interest of the elite. What a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" should do is say "no, fuck you" to the foreigners and multinationals. This is all Trump is doing and it's got the media, the left, and the GOP establishment apoplectic.
Illegal immigration is bad for citizens/workers, good for business/foreigners. No, fuck foreigners, deport illegals.
Shady muslims bad for citizens, good for foreigners. No, fuck them, ban terrorist muslims.
Trade deals bad for workers, good for business/China. No, fuck China, protect workers.
Repeat on each issue. That's basically it.
As I've mentioned in nearby posts there are more sane ways to reduce illegals (more border guards and biz audits) but neither T nor GOP are interested in anything that offends their biz donors & friends. They'd rather F with families than offend the precious 1%. Typical GOP.
Trump has already added thousands of BP and ICE agents, and nationwide E-Verify is part of Trump's immigration plan that was on his campaign website (the site has since been updated for the administration rather than the campaign or I'd link it). So one of the things you recommended Trump has already done and the other is part of his campaign promises, but that requires legislative action and right now Congress is doing other things. We'll see what happens.
By the way, a wall isn't going to stop drug trafficking. It's pretty easy to get drugs under or over a wall. A 7 year old can do it.
But a wall with sensors and more BP agents will definitely help, no?