Lurker > bfslick50

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

But you're forgetting the actual conflict.

This was the first Star Wars movie about the spaceship running out of gas.

I was limiting myself to the Luke parts, but that's just

"What if we redid Empire we did the escape to hyperspace before the land battle."
"How do they battle if they already escaped?"
"They're out of gas!"

Unfortunately the mountain exploded as soon as we completed it.

andri_g posted...

Mark Hamill said he wanted to play a good-versus-evil Luke in TLJ because his [irl] son told him that is what happened to Luke in the EU, which Hamill said he doesn't follow. He told Johnson this, asking if TLJ would have anything like it. Johnson told Hamill TLJ would only be using old [established] SW themes with new story ideas.

Johnson said TLJ used new story ideas? The reclusive jedi master did not want to train a new apprentice, citing a fear that they'll turn to the dark side. The jedi master relents and gives a couple of lessons that are cut short when the apprentice receives information through the force that their friends are in danger. The force ghost that appeared to the master and to say their gut reaction was wrong. It's not old themes with new story ideas when you're directly copying the majority of another film with a few resequencing.

Luke used a new never before seen power but that's enough to count as a new story idea. The idea that force sensitivity could come from anywhere is a new story idea but he just suggested it; he didn't do anything with it.

conduit posted...

Israeli settlers have assaulted, tortured, and committed sexual violence against Palestinians, stolen their belongings and livestock, threatened to kill them if they did not leave permanently, and destroyed their homes and schools under the cover of the ongoing hostilities in Gaza.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/17/west-bank-israel-responsible-rising-settler-violence

JFC. How is this not the same fucking thing as October 7th? Only the Palestinians in the West Bank apparently don't have a right to defend themselves.

Not long term

Tenaku posted...

The Skywalker saga will never heal from TLJ

Its clearly the Palpatine saga. That family is the driving force behind everything.

Good but wish Burr also called him out for equating Palestinian citizens with Hamas.

How was it cooked?

love_pirate posted...

Yes you do, you can choose to vote for neither. Voting for Neither tells the RNC and DNC that if they choose low quality candidates that don't actually represent you, they won't get your vote. The "other guy is way scarier" brain washing crap is why we keep having general elections with horrible candidates. They don't need to provide good candidates when all they have to do it make you really scared of the other guy.

Win over an abstaining voter and it's 1 gained vote, but win over an opponent's voter and it's a 2 vote swing. You think you're becoming this prize they'll compete before but instead you're voluntarily removing yourself so they can ignore you more easily. There's no penalty for winning with a low turnout.

7 - Through the Wormhole

DKBananaSlamma posted...

That topic is like 362 posts. I ain't reading all that lol

tl;dr? Was it cuz he made that topic?

Slow motion train wreck

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80767814/980371306

_____Cait posted...

Wait how did he out himself? What did i miss?

Oh man, it was a slow moving train wreck. Started simple enough, "hello my fellow left-leaning posters, I am very concerned about these totally recent allegations."

Naturally a lot of whataboutism. Comes out that TC also blames Biden for inaction on inflation, blames both sides for Congressional inaction and has a million excuses for Trump, but totally doesn't like Trump. Not securing nuclear secrets is the one thing he can never forgive.

One thing? Everyone jumps on that, what about rape, what about the insurrection. He condemns the actual insurrection but looks for every and any way to shift blame off of Trump. Hadn't heard of anything that came out in the Congressional hearings. Tried to blame the Governor of DC for not activating the national guard, which is a new one to me.

So to prove that he's totally a centrist (even those he's pro-life), he posts his results to an online ideology test. He got the target close to dead center, but he posted a screenshot of his answers which included him agreeing with blatantly racist statements. His justification for those answers being that he really wished he could've picked a neutral option, you know, cause he's a centrist.

Probably not what your looking for but Small World is a simplified fast version of Risk that uses fantasy races each with their own custom power.

JFC

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-former-white-house-aide-says-trump-knew-jan-6-protesters-had-weapons

Watch the January 6th hearings. Don't listen to meme retellings or what your favorite youtuber says, just watch, then come back here and explain your thoughts.

IdiotMachine posted...

I dont think Trump gives a shit about the lowly MAGAs enough to pardon them. And if true, that Trump wanted SS to stop screening for weapons, thats just wrong (of Trump).

He cares about building his brand and pardoning them helps that. It takes literally no effort on his part. He pardoned people via tweet. Why would he not?

Cassidy Hutchinson, an assistant to Trump's chief of staff, testified under oath that Trump told SS to stop screening for weapons because too much of the crowd was avoiding coming up close to him and avoiding the security checks. If I had that much evidence of someone that close to Biden doing something that extreme you would not still be qualifying it with "if true."

IdiotMachine posted...

I wanted to pick neutral, but that wasnt an option. Disagree makes me think its saying that my race has NEGATIVE qualities compared to other races, and thats not true either.

Disagreeing with being superior only means your race is inferior if you inherently believe the races can be ranked. If you believed all races were equal then disagreeing with being superior wouldn't have that implication.

IdiotMachine posted...

I also think Trump saying hes going to pardon them is bulls***, if true. If he does this, I would definitely switch from inaction to supporting the storming.

You think Trump won't pardon diehard supporters that he promised to pardon? Trump loves people that kiss his ass. These people went to jail for his cause. Of course he's going to fucking pardon them.

IdiotMachine posted...

I honestly think Trump didnt think it would have gone that far. Like who would have believed a bunch of MAGAs would actually charge the Capitol? That s*** was a bad day for the country. I do think hes responsible for the rhetoric, but not the actual action of the people that stormed the Capitol. I hope each and every single one of them get the book thrown at them.

His aide testified before Congress under oath that he wanted secret service to stop screening people for weapons at the Jan 6th rally because they obviously didn't bring the weapons to use against him.

IdiotMachine posted...

I never said he had brilliant leadership. In fact, Trump was an awful president and is an awful person. You far lefters are just putting words in my mouth and refusing to read the words Im typing out.

But you said his "go home you are loved" tweet hours after it started was him doing the opposite of inciting the attack. But when a general orders a retreat, no one claims that meant the general never wanted to win the attack in the first place. How is that tweet not viewed as a retreat? You now know he could have and didn't activate the national guard. You know he plans on pardoning them. What else do you need to be convinced that he supported that insurrection?

IdiotMachine posted...

That one wasnt about race to me. I took different sorts of people as economic and criminal backgrounds. And for clarity, yes, I do slightly agree that criminals should not be hanging out with lawful citizens.

So you're saying people released from jail shouldn't be able to fully integrate back into society? And also possibly implying that different economic backgrounds should stick to their own kind.

IdiotMachine posted...

I thought DC still had senators and representatives. I might be thinking of PR.

DC and PR both don't have senators and each have a single non-voting representative. Look you're distracting from the issue. His staff testified under oath that he just sat there watching TV doing nothing while it happened. The "go home I love you" tweet that you hold up as brilliant leadership came hours after it started. He had power to activate the national guard, he didn't. Turns out the commander-in-chief has a lot of powers beyond tweeting.

IdiotMachine posted...

idk how national guards work, but isnt that up to the governor and not the president?

The Governor of Washington DC?

https://dc.ng.mil/About-Us/

The Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is subordinate solely to the President of the United States. This authority to activate the D.C. National Guard has been delegated, by the President, to the Secretary of Defense and further delegated to the Secretary of the Army. The D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard unit, out of all of the 54 states and territories, which reports only to the President.

Notice that Pence isn't in that chain of command, but he was the one that acted hours after the insurrection started. He broke protocol to do it because no one else would.

IdiotMachine posted...

"Inciting an insurrection"- brah literally tweeted everyone to go home; that's the opposite of inciting. MAGAs are idiots tho.

Tweeting "go home we love you" hours after it started isn't the best way to reign it in. You'd think the commander in chief would have more tools at his disposal. Like why wasn't Trump the one to activate the national guard?

If only they had the balls for Darth Jar Jar in 9

bigblu89 posted...

People hearing that 200ish people walked out on Seinfelds speech will change zero minds.

They're controlling the narrative. There's definitely more conversation about the walkout and his support of Israel than about his speech. Coming into this topic I assumed it was about his anti-woke, there's no comedy anymore, complaints. I didn't know he said anything about the war and now I and many others do.

Heck, I wouldnt have even knew it had happened if I wasnt on CE.

The majority of protests don't even make it to CE so just having the news story being shared makes it more significant than many others.

bigblu89 posted...

Im not upset at all.

I didnt even look into this enough to see what school this was at.

You didn't read the topic title? That may be true as it's a long topic title, but it sounds like you're trying very hard to not reveal just how much you deeply care.

What I do know is that seeing this wouldnt change my opinion on anything that I currently believe in, even if I was the speaker they all walked out on.

Not everything is about you and no shit this isn't going to change Seinfeld's mind. You could have an hour heart to heart sitdown with Seinfeld and probably still not change his mind. They attended because it's their graduation and they walked about because they didn't want to listen to his shit, simple as that.

For people who don't care and think walking out of a speech accomplishes nothing, they sure are upset that the students didn't shut up and listen.

Heineken14 posted...

Gaslight
Obstruct
->Projection

My first thought

ROBANN_88 posted...

My favorite is that there is a Joe Rogan clip out there where he's bashing Biden for saying the airport stuff, like full on "he's mentally deficient, not fit for presidency" etc

Then someone chimes in and clarifies that Biden was quoting Trump, and play that clip.
Rogan goes "well, he just misspoke" and then move on to something else

I'd love it if it wasn't so infuriating. I was talking to a Both Sider on these boards, forgot which one, and asked about a similar incident, why is it a sign of mental decline when Biden misspeaks but not when Trump misspeaks, and the answer was because Trump is dumb so it's not a decline.

I kind of hate that it was Wolverine.

Gambit second

lol

ScazarMeltex posted...

A reminder that Howard Dean lost his entire political career because he yelled really loud.

Did he? He got 3rd in caucus before the yell. Afterwards it wasn't so much the yell but that he didn't own it. He was clearly showing up to events and interviews low energy and embarrassed after that.

Lincoln would've lost in the primary if he was still going for the Republican nomination, but I think he'd win in a general election if he ran as a Democrat.

Heineken14 posted...

"I'm not worried because Donnie and his crew were too stupid to do something like overthrow the government, and you can tell I'm not downplaying how dangerous they are because I called them stupid and that's enough for me!" - super cerial people

My brother is one of those but tries real hard to present otherwise. It's real disappointing everytime.

-"Trump is a criminal and I regret voting for him. He should be in jail."
-"So you're going to vote against him this time?"
-"Look I don't know who I'm going to vote for. The presidency doesn't really affect you that much."

As for a new term, people have definitely proposed a new term. One can can easily just call something just, toxic. Things both men and women do that's toxic doesn't have to be specifically dubbed masculinity all the time the moment it's toxic, with the attitude that no matter what it's only masculinity inherently pushing certain toxic things.

Actually I want to circle back to that, and why toxic masculinity is a better term than just saying toxic. Imagine someone a real narrow stereotypical view of masculinity who goes "You're not a man because XX."

Saying "that's toxic" is going to be the phrasing that gets the reply of "oh I'm toxic because I'm a man? I'm not going to apologize for not being XX like you." Saying that's a "toxic definition of masculinity" or that's "toxic masculinity" for short gets to the heart of the issue and directly implies that there are better definitions of masculinity. Vaguely saying "that's toxic" is less clear on what you're specifically calling toxic and more likely leads to the interpretation you don't want.

bfslick50 posted...

Toxic masculinity does not mean men are toxic in general. Its not even a statement about men but about a particular view of masculinity.

LightningThief posted...

Address the issue itself that was brought up originally by cjs, which was some who attach "toxic" to "masculinity" to label almost anything negative both men and women do that's bad. No matter the topic or issue, the goto is, masculinity being toxic. The issue of attaching toxic exclusively to masculinity.

Literally did in the post you quoted.

LightningThief posted...

They are not the same replies. You are looping in a completely different discussion/issue to make the case that one should by default support both, or not support both terms.

They are 2 completely different topics. It's not the same thing.

Different topics, same dense response. Toxic masculinity does not mean men are toxic in general. Its not even a statement about men but about a particular view of masculinity.

LightningThief posted...

I'd argue it's just as disingenuous to act like no one should not like the term being attached to an entire wide range of things as often some do. One may say masculinity isnt inherently bad, but the issue like you said is the additive of the word, which certain people make exclusive to just masculinity. Essentially attaching toxicity to just and only masculinity for anything and everything bad that happens.

I'd also argue it's disingenuous to claim its the same as BLM.

Literally the exact same reply. Why are only men toxic? Why do only black lives matter?

Ratchetrockon posted...

I was very talkative as a kid and my mom used to tell me to shut up all the time and said only girls did that. Also said I was too skinny like a girl, often. Also said I needed to stop crying during like sad scenes in movies because that's not manly, etc. I would have still been in elementary school.

is this toxic masculinity

Yes. Its a toxic definition of masculinity and it happens a lot to a lot of men. So much so thats why it became a male specific term. Women also feel extreme pressures to conform but its in a different form which is how a gender specific term evolved.

No one says toxic arsenic or toxic abuse. If a thing is inherently bad then it doesnt need the added adjective. Toxic masculinity only makes sense as a term if you believe masculinity is by default not toxic.

Complaining about the term sounds disengenuous like the people that freaked out over BLM. Im not against a new term but its on the people upset with the term to come up with a new one.

cjsdowg posted...

See this is why I dislike those terms. Women can do all most of these things, but this is stereotyped as masculine? And at the same time we talk about broken gender roles there is no issue with assigning these shit ass traits to the masculine ? I don't understand how both things can be done at the same time .

Toxic masculinity is when someone has a toxic definition of masculinity. That list is hitting on what a toxic definition would be. Basically when someone says associates a negative trait with masculinity or gatekeeps masculinity with arbitrary standards then its a toxic definition that hurts men.

NoxObscuras posted...

We really fail victims sometimes

Yep

Fuck this guy. Throw the book on him. Law enforcement can blow throw a stop sign when theyre blaring the sirens in order to rush somewhere as part of their job and only then. No one should be above the law.

Mecha_Sonic posted...

what is your plan for stopping Hamas or a Hamas-like party from winning this election, coming to power, and then genociding all the jews.

Take a step back and listen to yourself. Think of literally any other culture where someone would say "If we give them the vote then they'll genocide us." Be that racists in America or the apartheid ruling class in South Africa. Are those the arguments you want to use? Those aren't less contentious histories. Yes there are extremists that cause pain but in general expanding voting rights has consistently led to a more peaceful society.

If their court systems work like ours then it'll be a long ass time before Palestinians getting the vote translates to Palestinians having any substantial voice in the interpretation of laws. They should have a strong Bill of Rights if they don't already. The US will likely poke their nose in anytime they're concerned.

BewmHedshot posted...

The plane flies until it crashes, which it has a 50% chance to do each time. Post-crash, what are the odds you're dead given you were one of the passengers.

It is trivially easy to solve for any specific number of flights, but if that is unspecified the answer is 80.33%.

OK, so it's a matter of perspective.

If you're the one boarding the plane, there's a 50% chance of dying.

If your friend texted you they were boarding the plane, and later in the you heard the plane crashed without knowing which flight crashed and how many flights there were and how full your friend's plane was, then it's an 80.33% chance your friend is dead because the friend is most likely to be on the most full flight which is the one that crashed.

BewmHedshot posted...

You're missing the fact that once it crashes it can't fly again, and you are always one of the population who were on the plane at some point.

If it's a true random event then the plane crashing before you have a chance to get on it should also be a possibility.

Fenrir_Howls posted...

From the same interview (bold is Seinfeld):

The offense is if it wasnt funny. Thats the offense.

The other person is never offended if you insult them, rag on them, or something.

As long as its funny. Whichusually, insulting someone to their face is pretty funny. But we dont think that there is much value in everything else in life. Everything else in life is pretty much a nuisance. But, if you can get a laugh out of it, its worth it. Thats the way you go through life. You only care about laughing and being funny.

But who gets to decide if it's funny? I don't think he'd be OK with a bigot telling an antisemitic joke and getting a huge laugh from a bigoted audience.

He admits this wasn't to Stern's face, but when the "woke mob" that he constantly complains about is upset about a comic on stage telling a joke about LGBT people with very few in the audience, suddenly it doesn't matter that it's not to their face.