"So Brie Larson didn't describe it as a "big feminist movie"?"
Who cares?
"And it wasn't timed to be released on Woman's Day?"
First female Marvel cinematic lead's movie released on Women's day? So what?
"And it doesn't have a Mary Sue character?"
She's a female Superman so that's just her character being her character.
"And any legitimate criticism of the movie hasn't been met with cries of "incel" or "mysogynist" or "troll"?"
You're clearly searching for anything you can find to fit your world view here. Please show how "any legitimate criticism of the movie hasn't been met with cries of "incel" or "mysogynist" or "troll"?""
"There's plenty of legitimate arguments against what people were actually upset about, reducing it to the strawman "omg they're sexists mad because it's a female lead!" is inaccurate and demonstrates you're every bit as intellectually dishonest as the people you're criticizing."
Captain Marvel seems to have generated a certain amount of outrage as illustrated by the online trolling it received both now and before the movie came out. The reason a lot of people blame sexism over the female lead for this is because they're searching for an explanation for the outrage and it seems to fit what is going on. If Captain Marvel was just a bad movie the outrage wouldn't have been there prior to the movie's release and it wouldn't have been there after the movie came out as bad movies happen. i don't remember outrage when John Travolta's Gotti came out and I don't remember mass internet trolling happening over how terrible that film was. Gotti certainly never had more reviews than Infinity War ever got pop up on Rotten Tomatoes on its opening day, tanking the movie's rating.
So then is the movie, Captain Marvel itself sexist and that's the problem people are getting outraged over? Again, there certainly wouldn't have been the outrage prior to the movie coming out. After that, I think most people just don't see that as there are plenty of positive male roles in the movie and Captain Marvel herself just doesn't practice much "male bashing".
So given all that, if sexism over the female lead isn't the driving force behind all of the outrage this movie is getting, what is it?
A great way to avoid identity politics in movies is to do what I do and stay off Twitter, Reddit, and any other platform that gives a voice to the masses. I don't notice most of the "horrible indiscretions" on my own (probably because they aren't worth noticing) and without the outrage police screaming in my ear from either the right or the left I get to just watch and like or dislike a movie or show without a bunch of lame drama just like I used to years ago.
I would think this would work for anybody who doesn't care about the outrage machine and identity politics. Without some one constantly telling you to be outraged, it's much easier to let things that really just dont matter slide by.
Sadly though, this would never do a thing for those that want to be outraged. They'll keep finding reasons to be outraged because deep down that's what they want.
This is great. First you falsely accuse me of slippery slope reasoning while you literally engage in the act. Then you try to cherry pick your data by only talking about legally owned guns. After that you revisit your own slippery slope of "if guns, why not cars" and now you're accusing me of exaggerating the scale of gun violence and scare mongering when the only extent to which I have even come close to commenting on gun violence is to point out that the US' homicide rate (not even gun violence rate) is twice that of the West's average and that's just a statistical fact.
So what's next, will you again revisit your slippery car slope or will you again just make something up and claim it's been what I've been saying?
Oh, back to cars. Perhaps I didn't elaborate enough on that point the first time you brought them up. A gun's only purpose is to kill something and in most cases that something is people where as a car is built to move people around. Banning guns for doing what they are designed to do is a completely different conversation from banning a car which is widely used for constructive purposes.
"SF is surrounded by water, Dallas is surrounded by shit. Shit is easier to build on."
Building "out" is hardly the only option for growth for a community. San Francisco has plenty of vertical space to build into....And before people claim "no" because of earthquakes, tall buildings can be safely built in earth quake zones. Japan and many other countries have a long, safe history of doing so.
No it's not. How it is supposed to work is that when rental prices start to spike in a community developers see the increasing profit potential of an area and increase development. It's classic supply and demand economics and is literally how all of our major cities formed.
What is happening in San Francisco (and in many parts of California) is that supply isn't being allowed to increase or increase fast enough by local government. The biggest offender is the valley but their problem has become so severe (with a modest single family homes selling for over a million) that it's spilling over and exacerbating already existing problems in places like San Francisco and beyond.
"Your rationale is the epitome of slippery slope reasoning - by your logic, cars should become illegal because despite being legal the vast majority of the time, they have been used in crimes and therefore the less cars being sold, the less will be used to commit crime."
That's not by my logic at all, the only slippery slope here is being provided by you. Guns have a single practical function and that is to kill something and in most cases that something is people (hunting rifles being the exception). Spinning my argument on to cars is just you piling up enough shit for yourself to slide down.
Of course most big games like this are never finished so your anecdotal evidence matches up with all big games like this https://www.theguardian.com/te... . Shit, in the article's major example just 6.4% of players finished Pillars of Eternity.
People not finishing big games has been a well known trend in gaming for at least a decade.
"They made it too slow for the audience. "
It's fairly certain that if you dont like a game with scores like these https://www.metacritic.com/gam... it's not a problem with the game, the game is just not to your taste.
"RDR2 is pretty, like really pretty. Unfortunately that's about all it has going for it. Once I stopped being fascinated by graphics I found it to be one of the more boring RPGs I've played."
"This is the problem with "Live Services". Because the game has to go on forever with an endless loop chock full of microtransactions and loot boxes nothing substantial or interesting can happen in the game. Even Destiny 2 with it's instance dungeons fell victim to that. "
I'm puzzled. The core Red Dead 2 game play is single player (so much so that multiplayer was still in beta on launch) which has no micro transactions.
"The consoles still have 2 or 3 decent single player releases a year so there's that. But they're only there to move consoles. If we ever get the "ever-console" that streams the games then we'll lose that too."
Why would they stop making successful games because of game streaming? Online gaming where they lock you into needing an internet connection already exists and they still make single player games. Streaming wouldn't change a thing in this context,
Largest by far percent of gun violence is gangs with handguns shooting each other. Next is suicide."
There are plenty of gangs in every first world nation, they just have a much harder time getting guns because guns are much rarer.
"The chances of you getting involved with a shooting by the majority of legal gun owners is less than you dying in a car accident."
Absolutely. Where do the guns come from that are illegally owned though? Are there illegal gun factories in the US pumping out black market guns? No, they are all legally manufactured in the US and legally sold to distributors or direct to vendors in the US. Only afterwards do they end up illegally owned. In other words, we have so many people who own guns illegally precisely because of our mass legal gun ownership.
I for one like the idea of living in country where, generally speaking, the worst a mugger has is a knife because if they're a mugger they'll have their weapon out well before I ever would so my own right or non-right to carry a gun would be irrelevant.
"You are making the fallacious argument that "China is bad, therefore China is worse". That is not a logical conclusion."
No I'm not, I've literally pointed out what is worse about the Chinese justice system multiple times to you in multiple posts. In fact, this is a perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black as what you are doing is in fact what you are claiming I am doing.
This is the second time in this thread that you have falsely miss-characterized what I have been saying.
"Americans, and especially innocent Americans, are more likely to be unjustly imprisoned even when accounting for the Xinjiang camps."
Well for starters you're attempting to shape this debate into the context of a single metric which wouldn't be accurate at all but let's play your game for a moment. Show me some comparative statistics to support what you've just said. Oh wait, you can't because China doesn't release that info. Well then let's reason some things out here...
For starters, the Innocence Project (a group that is certainly sympathetic to our country's problems in this area) lists an estimate that 1 percent of the US prison population is unjustly imprisoned, or about 20k people ( https://www.innocenceproject.o... ). That is certainly bad.
Now let's try our best to compare that to China. So we don't have any proper data on their regular prison system which makes compairson in that context impossible (one of many reasons our system isn't as bad as theirs) but we do have a pretty good idea that there are, at a minimum, several hundred thousand Uighur that have suddenly ended up in specially built prisons almost over night. I feel safe in the assumption that the majority of these people have done little to nothing wrong by any reasonable set of standards
Which is worse, hundreds of thousands falsely imprisoned or tens of thousands? By your own single metric China's system is much worse than ours.
Even before the Uigher's mass imprisonment our system was better though. It has always been possible in China for this type of unjust, mass incarceration to happen with virtually no challenge.
After that, please revisit my other posts where I bring up things like the fact that American's have actual, functional legal recourse to being unjustly imprisoned (and the people who represent them in this context never end up in prison as a result of representing them), are never made to disappear (which functionally eliminates all rights), never have their verdict decided prior to going to court, and never have their verdict decided outside the courts by politicians.
"I'm yearning for balance becoming the political agenda du jour but looking back in history, if it ever was a thing, it will likely take benevolent dictatorahip."
Generally speaking a Democracy is, by its very nature, a balance of the ideologies of its people. If Americans weren't more Leftist today then they were 30 years ago then political figures like Bernie wouldn't be relevant because no one would care what he was saying
Also, the whole surveillance state thing, at least in the US, is hardly exclusively backed by the Left. In fact, many of our "right" are staunch supporters of the NSA and its domestic spying.
Wait, large scale gun ownership makes a society safer? So why do we have the highest homicide rate in the first world by over 2 times the next closest country?
Violations of personal freedom like stop and frisk and are even more necessary when there are guns all over the place. The effect it had on New York's crime rate helps illustrate this.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically Captain Marvel was a sexist movie because Brie Larson said 2 things you didn't like?
One of them not even about the Captain Marvel movie no less...
"So Brie Larson didn't describe it as a "big feminist movie"?"
Who cares?
"And it wasn't timed to be released on Woman's Day?"
First female Marvel cinematic lead's movie released on Women's day? So what?
"And it doesn't have a Mary Sue character?"
She's a female Superman so that's just her character being her character.
"And any legitimate criticism of the movie hasn't been met with cries of "incel" or "mysogynist" or "troll"?"
You're clearly searching for anything you can find to fit your world view here. Please show how "any legitimate criticism of the movie hasn't been met with cries of "incel" or "mysogynist" or "troll"?""
"There's plenty of legitimate arguments against what people were actually upset about, reducing it to the strawman "omg they're sexists mad because it's a female lead!" is inaccurate and demonstrates you're every bit as intellectually dishonest as the people you're criticizing."
Captain Marvel seems to have generated a certain amount of outrage as illustrated by the online trolling it received both now and before the movie came out. The reason a lot of people blame sexism over the female lead for this is because they're searching for an explanation for the outrage and it seems to fit what is going on. If Captain Marvel was just a bad movie the outrage wouldn't have been there prior to the movie's release and it wouldn't have been there after the movie came out as bad movies happen. i don't remember outrage when John Travolta's Gotti came out and I don't remember mass internet trolling happening over how terrible that film was. Gotti certainly never had more reviews than Infinity War ever got pop up on Rotten Tomatoes on its opening day, tanking the movie's rating.
So then is the movie, Captain Marvel itself sexist and that's the problem people are getting outraged over? Again, there certainly wouldn't have been the outrage prior to the movie coming out. After that, I think most people just don't see that as there are plenty of positive male roles in the movie and Captain Marvel herself just doesn't practice much "male bashing".
So given all that, if sexism over the female lead isn't the driving force behind all of the outrage this movie is getting, what is it?
A great way to avoid identity politics in movies is to do what I do and stay off Twitter, Reddit, and any other platform that gives a voice to the masses. I don't notice most of the "horrible indiscretions" on my own (probably because they aren't worth noticing) and without the outrage police screaming in my ear from either the right or the left I get to just watch and like or dislike a movie or show without a bunch of lame drama just like I used to years ago.
I would think this would work for anybody who doesn't care about the outrage machine and identity politics. Without some one constantly telling you to be outraged, it's much easier to let things that really just dont matter slide by.
Sadly though, this would never do a thing for those that want to be outraged. They'll keep finding reasons to be outraged because deep down that's what they want.
This is great. First you falsely accuse me of slippery slope reasoning while you literally engage in the act. Then you try to cherry pick your data by only talking about legally owned guns. After that you revisit your own slippery slope of "if guns, why not cars" and now you're accusing me of exaggerating the scale of gun violence and scare mongering when the only extent to which I have even come close to commenting on gun violence is to point out that the US' homicide rate (not even gun violence rate) is twice that of the West's average and that's just a statistical fact.
So what's next, will you again revisit your slippery car slope or will you again just make something up and claim it's been what I've been saying?
Oh, back to cars. Perhaps I didn't elaborate enough on that point the first time you brought them up. A gun's only purpose is to kill something and in most cases that something is people where as a car is built to move people around. Banning guns for doing what they are designed to do is a completely different conversation from banning a car which is widely used for constructive purposes.
And yet every single illegally owned fire arm started off as legal so segregating legally owned guns into their own statistic is meaningless.
"SF is surrounded by water, Dallas is surrounded by shit. Shit is easier to build on."
Building "out" is hardly the only option for growth for a community. San Francisco has plenty of vertical space to build into. ...And before people claim "no" because of earthquakes, tall buildings can be safely built in earth quake zones. Japan and many other countries have a long, safe history of doing so.
"This is how it's _supposed_ to work."
No it's not. How it is supposed to work is that when rental prices start to spike in a community developers see the increasing profit potential of an area and increase development. It's classic supply and demand economics and is literally how all of our major cities formed.
What is happening in San Francisco (and in many parts of California) is that supply isn't being allowed to increase or increase fast enough by local government. The biggest offender is the valley but their problem has become so severe (with a modest single family homes selling for over a million) that it's spilling over and exacerbating already existing problems in places like San Francisco and beyond.
"Your rationale is the epitome of slippery slope reasoning - by your logic, cars should become illegal because despite being legal the vast majority of the time, they have been used in crimes and therefore the less cars being sold, the less will be used to commit crime."
That's not by my logic at all, the only slippery slope here is being provided by you. Guns have a single practical function and that is to kill something and in most cases that something is people (hunting rifles being the exception). Spinning my argument on to cars is just you piling up enough shit for yourself to slide down.
It will? You just said you loved Red Dead 1's slow pace. That game's slow pace certainly didnt hurt Red Dead 2's sales.
Of course most big games like this are never finished so your anecdotal evidence matches up with all big games like this https://www.theguardian.com/te... . Shit, in the article's major example just 6.4% of players finished Pillars of Eternity.
People not finishing big games has been a well known trend in gaming for at least a decade.
"They made it too slow for the audience. "
It's fairly certain that if you dont like a game with scores like these https://www.metacritic.com/gam... it's not a problem with the game, the game is just not to your taste.
"RDR2 is pretty, like really pretty. Unfortunately that's about all it has going for it. Once I stopped being fascinated by graphics I found it to be one of the more boring RPGs I've played."
Sure, that's why it is so well reviewed. Because it's boring ( https://www.metacritic.com/gam... ).
Based on reviews like that it's safe to say there isn't much wrong with the game, it's just not to your taste.
Personally, I love the pacing in Red Dead games. It feels like it fits the western genre it's set in incredibly well.
"The judiciary in the US isn't independent either."
It is. It's one of our three branches of government.
At the top you have the politically appointed Supreme Court
Supreme Court judges can rule how ever they want and answer to no one. That is independence.
"and further down judges and prosecutors are elected and thus subject to the influence of both voters and money."
Did you really think I meant independent of everything? Nothing is in this world. Obviously I meant independent of the rest of government.
Where do you think illegally owned guns come from? They were all legal at some point.
Less legal guns mean less guns that can illegally make their way into criminal's hands.
Both legal and illegal immigrants in this country commit less crime than its native citizens ( https://www.chicagotribune.com... , https://www.factcheck.org/2018... ). Couple that with the fact that our crime rate peaked in the 80's and is now at a relative post war low ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... ) and it becomes pretty clear that what you're getting at isn't even close to correct.
"This is the problem with "Live Services". Because the game has to go on forever with an endless loop chock full of microtransactions and loot boxes nothing substantial or interesting can happen in the game. Even Destiny 2 with it's instance dungeons fell victim to that. "
I'm puzzled. The core Red Dead 2 game play is single player (so much so that multiplayer was still in beta on launch) which has no micro transactions.
"The consoles still have 2 or 3 decent single player releases a year so there's that. But they're only there to move consoles. If we ever get the "ever-console" that streams the games then we'll lose that too."
Why would they stop making successful games because of game streaming? Online gaming where they lock you into needing an internet connection already exists and they still make single player games. Streaming wouldn't change a thing in this context,
"People want more variety in these games."
Which is why these games sell so well?
"It takes roughly 15 minutes for its bland everycowboy star, Arthur Morgan, to gallop across the 29-square-mile map."
Apparently the author is new to modern RPGS
A) Relative to other modern RPGs, that's not very much at all
B) The game has fast travel
Everything else in the review just makes me think "Well, maybe you need to accept that big open world RPGs are not for you".
Jesus Christ. Fuck off troll. No one cares about Bill and blood plasma.
You're putting words in my mouth, I have advocated for nothing. I have only pointed to the source of our homicide problem.
"Gangs.
Largest by far percent of gun violence is gangs with handguns shooting each other. Next is suicide."
There are plenty of gangs in every first world nation, they just have a much harder time getting guns because guns are much rarer.
"The chances of you getting involved with a shooting by the majority of legal gun owners is less than you dying in a car accident."
Absolutely. Where do the guns come from that are illegally owned though? Are there illegal gun factories in the US pumping out black market guns? No, they are all legally manufactured in the US and legally sold to distributors or direct to vendors in the US. Only afterwards do they end up illegally owned. In other words, we have so many people who own guns illegally precisely because of our mass legal gun ownership.
I for one like the idea of living in country where, generally speaking, the worst a mugger has is a knife because if they're a mugger they'll have their weapon out well before I ever would so my own right or non-right to carry a gun would be irrelevant.
"You are making the fallacious argument that "China is bad, therefore China is worse". That is not a logical conclusion."
No I'm not, I've literally pointed out what is worse about the Chinese justice system multiple times to you in multiple posts. In fact, this is a perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black as what you are doing is in fact what you are claiming I am doing.
This is the second time in this thread that you have falsely miss-characterized what I have been saying.
"Americans, and especially innocent Americans, are more likely to be unjustly imprisoned even when accounting for the Xinjiang camps."
Well for starters you're attempting to shape this debate into the context of a single metric which wouldn't be accurate at all but let's play your game for a moment. Show me some comparative statistics to support what you've just said. Oh wait, you can't because China doesn't release that info. Well then let's reason some things out here...
For starters, the Innocence Project (a group that is certainly sympathetic to our country's problems in this area) lists an estimate that 1 percent of the US prison population is unjustly imprisoned, or about 20k people ( https://www.innocenceproject.o... ). That is certainly bad.
Now let's try our best to compare that to China. So we don't have any proper data on their regular prison system which makes compairson in that context impossible (one of many reasons our system isn't as bad as theirs) but we do have a pretty good idea that there are, at a minimum, several hundred thousand Uighur that have suddenly ended up in specially built prisons almost over night. I feel safe in the assumption that the majority of these people have done little to nothing wrong by any reasonable set of standards
Which is worse, hundreds of thousands falsely imprisoned or tens of thousands? By your own single metric China's system is much worse than ours.
Even before the Uigher's mass imprisonment our system was better though. It has always been possible in China for this type of unjust, mass incarceration to happen with virtually no challenge.
After that, please revisit my other posts where I bring up things like the fact that American's have actual, functional legal recourse to being unjustly imprisoned (and the people who represent them in this context never end up in prison as a result of representing them), are never made to disappear (which functionally eliminates all rights), never have their verdict decided prior to going to court, and never have their verdict decided outside the courts by politicians.
"I'm yearning for balance becoming the political agenda du jour but looking back in history, if it ever was a thing, it will likely take benevolent dictatorahip."
Generally speaking a Democracy is, by its very nature, a balance of the ideologies of its people. If Americans weren't more Leftist today then they were 30 years ago then political figures like Bernie wouldn't be relevant because no one would care what he was saying
Also, the whole surveillance state thing, at least in the US, is hardly exclusively backed by the Left. In fact, many of our "right" are staunch supporters of the NSA and its domestic spying.
Wait, large scale gun ownership makes a society safer? So why do we have the highest homicide rate in the first world by over 2 times the next closest country?
Violations of personal freedom like stop and frisk and are even more necessary when there are guns all over the place. The effect it had on New York's crime rate helps illustrate this.