Lurker > wpot

jiffdiff posted...

The greatest trick Canada ever played was convincing everyone they weren't always like this.

All those Keysers, eh?

Oh, it was certainly always there. It was the same as with the US: events simply needed to occur to allow people to feel permission to express their inner...uh...non-conformances. If people become convinced (rightly or wrongly) that their society is worthless and heading in the wrong direction they will start acting on their base impulses eventually. Trump didn't create that (I would argue it's been building as we've societally forgotten the lessons of WW2) but he threw gas on it.

adjl posted...

cranky right-wingers of all backgrounds

Yep - it's "just" the Jan 6th mindset exported to the north. Sorry Canada.

Why would a coroner lie? Why would someone kill Bob Saget?

The only thing that seems weird to me is how they know it's the headboard. If anything I suspect that he might have let in a visitor, did something strenuous near the bed, and didn't seek medical attention partly because of embarrassment. Hmmmmmm.

Doesn't much matter to me. Do that thing that turns me into a frisbee for all I care.

That said, I know a guy who's afraid of being in a box forever. To each their own illogical fear.

TheSlinja posted...

bro this is another futurama reboot, I can see why not everyone would consider it a passion project

See comment #1 above....I agree.

...but he's disagreeing about dollars, not "I'm done with that character"...which shines a different light on it.

Yeeaah...what do you say anymore?! I guess I agree with:
1) Primary responsibility falls on those developing and allowing no-knock raids. Presuming those people can't be charged, there should at least be a large civil settlement...for whatever good that does.
2) The cop was acting as trained and (probably) isn't legally liable the way the law is written, but I agree with the comment that he has moral responsibility. This isn't the army: he wouldn't have been punished for knocking at his discretion or simply entering more cautiously. It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to realize that the actions you're taking have a risk of starting a shootout.
3) For God's sake, how many more systematic problems do we have that need fixing? And why do they all come to light in Minneapolis? Gross.
4) There are lots of good, idealistic cops out there. And there are lots of power fetish cops out there. We badly need the good ones, and badly need to get rid of the bad ones.

There are a few ways to go with this, all of which are true:
1) If this prevents a few more lame episodes, fine and good
2) As with MLB and the current players' union, I don't really care who gets the money. I just find it disappointing they don't care more about their art than they do about dollars...and gross that they appeal to public complaints for support.
3) DiMaggio absolutely has the right to do whatever he wants. And I have the right to think less of everyone involved.

Eh.

"Micro", hell. They have MACROchips.

Yes, the easy reaction is: "OMG we're encouraging people to use drugs".

The point is:
1) We're paying a large medical for treating drug overdoses. Whether conservatives want to pretend it's not happening or not we're all paying for the treatment of these people in the hospital because they aren't turned away: the costs for those not covered by insurance are added to the costs of doing business, those are passed to insurers...and then us. Furthermore, they use up beds that could be devoted to others (particularly in a pandemic).
2) We're paying a large prison bill for locking all of these people up, feeding them, etc.
3) We're paying a large societal cost because of crime linked to drug abuse.
Etc etc.

I would hope that this is an example of engaging with the problem and trying to solve it, rather than pretending that by simply opposing it (declaring war on it) every step of the way we're going to get a good result. Declaring war on countries and occupying them is a great way to make the people there not like us and drift towards viewpoints we dislike. Declaring war on drugs is a great way to lose connections with drug users and push them into the arms of criminals who happily profit from them. Neither "war" is effective at achieving the goal we say we want to achieve: it just satisfies a simplistic "we're fighting bad guys" need that many have.

But again: is the program in the article going to do more harm than good? I don't know. I seriously doubt that those complaining have thought it through either.

FrozenBananas posted...

thats one of my favorite movies lol, but I understand why youd be angry, its not for everyone

Maybe I'd like it more now, but my college self hated that movie.

FrozenBananas posted...

for me The Lovely Bones. I wanted to scream at Mark Wahlberg for not trying harder to look for his missing daughter. And I walked out of the theater half way through lol

Yeah, that wasn't good. The Happening with Wahlberg would be another contender: not much worse than a horror/suspense movie that isn't, you know, suspenseful.

I don't ever remember leaving my shoes on in someone's house, with the exception of "I'm just grabbing one thing over there" moments. If the house was dirty enough, though...

Magnolia.

Three hours of drama/boredom, then it rains frogs. The end.

Sorry. Just tell me what to do.

Not even an inch? Yeah, that's...not long. Unless you're interviewing somewhere that only allows bald people?

Can State workers join this topic?

Revelation34 posted...

San Diego is cursed for sports

As a Minnesotan I have limited sympathy. :)

Revelation34 posted...

Leaving a cursed city.

If St Louis is cursed then every non-coastal city is cursed.

And they probably are.

I think its the magical candle myself. :)

The discussion we were having is who got it worse: Mirabelle or the lady whos emotions affect the weather. That seems like a net negative superpower. Id rather have Megs fingernail thing.

Nah, he wasn't very interested in the first for whatever reason. We'll have to try again someday.

I suppose it could also be said that it's more than just actions and if a person truly believes themself superior to a different race then they would be racist regardless of their actions...but that's something a person can only judge in themself.

I should know better than to discuss racism on an internet message board, but what the heck...

I think the overarching answer to your question is that racism is not...binary. It's not either "you're a disgusting, unredeemable racist" or "you're not racist" with nothing in-between. Everyone has thoughts that are prejudiced at times. Anyone who says they don't is being dishonest and (frankly) unhelpful.

Soo...in your examples you asked if you would be racist if you came to an conclusion that was reasonable based on your experiences but prejudiced against a race. The answer is that that would be a prejudiced thought, yes. However, again, everyone of all races comes to thoughts and conclusions that are prejudiced at times: What matters is how you act on those thoughts and conclusions.

You would be capital R "Racist" as a personal trait if you didn't occasionally search yourself for prejudices and/or didn't allow an individual to prove your prejudices inaccurate before making significant judgments about them IMO. If you avoid doing that you would still have occasional prejudiced thoughts but (through logic, compassion, training, or other techniques) you would have learned to appropriately control them.

If you aren't self-critical and willing to change you're at a much higher risk of being Racist.

Finally, it is possible to have a prejudiced thought that is also true. I won't use an example for obvious reasons, but let's just says that all races probably have tendencies that could legitimately bother people from other races. Observing in and of itself isn't wrong. How you react to it is what's important.

adjl posted...

consumers are increasingly pushing back against having unnecessary add-ons in their cars (the general attitude being "that's one more thing to go wrong,"

That, and also when the "base package" includes a bunch of add-on junk you don't need and you know it's driving up the cost it is...disappointing.

Theyre both wrong. Its dumb not to have a limit or otherwise clear rule. Its also dumb to drive 257 mph. They deserve each other.

Oh lame pencil pusher, certainly.

I work for said agency. If you're talking about it we've already won. :)

I like STARE, then CHIMP myself. I figure that gives me a good enough idea of the vowels plus a good number of consonants. Sometimes WOULD third if I'm really striking out.

But yeah, it's pretty easy with those.

Today's pissed me off.

Wordle 229 6/6








Guessed STARE to start and thought I'd get it in 2. Then...
SCARY SPARK SWARM SOARS
.
.
SHARD

MartianManchild posted...

Your extreme bias blinds you.

The same way you were blind to the several other comments in the other previous posts that provided on-point scientific counterarguments, perhaps?

MartianManchild posted...

Did you even read the peer reviewed research paper I posted?

I read it. It said it appeared to reduce the symptoms for 72 people in Bangledesh. It also said that more study was needed, as would be expected for a study that small, meaning it was (of course) followed up by this:

rjsilverthorn posted...

https://www.newsweek.com/reuters-corrects-ivermectin-anti-viral-effect-omicron-covid-coronavirus-1674854

Big picture: I wouldn't be shocked if ivermectin helped a little to reduce symptoms/duration. (I also wouldn't be surprised to see it have other side effects) But a vaccine is going to help far more, and anyone using this tiny study to promote ivermectin in PLACE of a vaccine is not engaging in a science-based discussion. If someone wants to talk about ivermectin after agreeing that a vaccine is the way to start...then OK, let's look at science. But that is very rarely where people are coming from.

Agreed with the "you can see it better at home", comment. Pro football is a TV sport. I like football, but I would almost certainly resell any tickets that fell in my lap.

I feel the opposite about soccer and hockey (and to some extent basketball), for the record. They are boring on TV, but they're better in person because you feel the flow of the game in the crowd much better.

Yeah, that looks like a half-assed landlord solution. Without the owner actually living there I could see where you might actually have to go with the code violation.

Maybe they'll find other stuff in the process and you'll end up helping out the people living there. :)

California has a bit of something for everyone if you can find your spot. Florida is a hot/swampy party with lousy health care.

If forced I choose Northern CA.

I don't have a whole lot more to add: this was kind of an aside to the point I was originally trying to make, and I generally agree that Disney is trying hard to be diverse and do a good job, and I agree that trying too hard is better than not trying hard enough given their history.

As for cultural accuracy/magic, it's not that it's impossible for anything to happen in a magic world. They could all get warped to Atlantis and "it's magic" would explain it, technically. It's that trying too hard to add diversity (cynically or not) causes its own problems IMO: *my* gut reaction is that sweeping subcultural/cultural differences aside and saying "we can all give up who we were and assimilate into 1700s France" has its own problematic implications. And then there's some loss of immersion and the inevitable counter-reaction from the right.

...but maybe I'm wrong and it's worth it. I'd be interested to hear anyone from a 'subculture' tell me if that felt corporate/fake to you or whether you thought it was good/helpful. I expect there are a variety of opinions.

LinkPizza posted...

By asking the way you did, it makes it sound like youre against diversity, tbh

Oh I know: questioning any change made for the (apparent) sake of diversity sets me up to be the bad guy. I tend to think that style of change is a cynical move on the part of Disney to say "look, we're diverse now" and it doesn't accomplish much other than play into the hands of those (i.e. right-wing talking heads) who can call it out for what it is: a cosmetic/corporate change versus a meaningful change.

It's good for the actors who getting chances at roles they couldn't otherwise play, I suppose, but I just don't think that's the way to do diversity. There are bigger problems, sure, and I'll give them credit for the way they've highlighted other cultures in other movies recently...but that one feels wrong.

LinkPizza posted...

I also see no issue with certain stories living forever. People like them. So why end them. Just because you dont like them

I don't have a problem with stories living on if people want to. I personally suspect this particular story wouldn't live on if it weren't for Disney (or Disney imitators) but if people still want it more power to them. My original point was that perhaps the original could be left as a piece of history if the storyline is going to have to be greatly modified to make it acceptable. But even then who knows: maybe they'll surprise me and making something new and better? If they have a winning way to do it: fine and good.

kangolcone posted...

He already stated that talking candelabras are not an issue but a person of color in France is a bridge too far.

I'm not your enemy here, but you can double down on the strawman if you'd like. I won't argue.

kangolcone posted...

Just wanted to make sure that what made a movie unbelievable for you was black people in France and not a talking teacup.

You don't really need to strawman me here. I'm not talking about believability, as you well know.

kangolcone posted...

So, your issue with a movie that features a witch who transformers a person into a monster and his servants into furniture is the cultural accuracy?

Like I said there are bigger problems, but yes: it's an issue. (To say nothing about how it 'feeds the beast' on the right) What happens in the movie doesn't much matter.

LinkPizza posted...

original came from somewhere else, IIRC

Well, the "IIRC" is the point, isn't it? It would have died and been forgotten if it weren't for Disney. Not all stories, even the ones selected by Disney, need to live forever. Granted, Disney will try to make them last forever (with good success) but they don't NEED to. And they shouldn't in some cases. But yes, in this case Disney isn't going to go that route.

LinkPizza posted...

Lots of older stuff were made in different times with less diversity, so I see what theyre trying to do.

What they're really trying to do is to squeeze more money out of characters that have been successful, of course. However, I'm not convinced it's the RIGHT thing to do. Why not make new movies about places that are actually diverse rather than forcing it into unnatural settings? Or at least change the setting of Beauty from France to, say, Houston: go West Side Story with it!

Really: is it truly appropriate to show people who appeared to come from different cultures all happily assimilated into a white/French culture...? It employs diverse actors, sure, but is that REALLY the right message? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to see traits from different cultures rather than expecting the French one to dominate? I say they made a surficial change that looked good on the surface but that they weren't really doing anyone any favors in the big picture.

Anyways, given their past it's good to see them trying and there are certainly bigger problems. I just disagree with that style of modernization.

I would say Hamilton did something similar, but better: they added characteristics from different subcultures rather than just different faces for the sake of different faces. There was more of a point being made...although it worked better on some levels than others.

I lump "weather" into "land" so far as Russia is concerned. :) Trading land for time is an unsatisfying, but effective, tactic for them.

Did they think they were sacrificing Moscow when defying Napoleon? No, I'm sure that wasn't the plan...but it worked nonetheless.

Entity13 posted...

"He's coming. Let's lead him here, as the dead of winter approaches, but abandon this city we can rebuild for somewhere hidden. Then burn this city down while he is in it."

This, btw, was because when Napoleon was trying to enforce a high tariff against Britain so as to weaken them and make an invasion possible, Russia continued doing business with Britain and disregarding Napoleon.

An interesting tactic to be sure. :) Really, though: who else but a major power would flaunt Napoleon and his continental domination? "You want us to stop trading with Britain? Come make us: we'll see how that turns out for you." They used the strengths that they had: land and numbers.

Jen0125 posted...

It's kind of a double edged sword here because I get his POV but also in doing so he just took 7 jobs from actors that are little people too if Disney was going to cast it that way.

It should be principles before money, right? Although, granted, it's much easier for a successful actor who already has a bunch of money to put principles first. In either case I'd be interested in hearing a broader opinion from little people as opposed to just Dinklage.

LinkPizza posted...

I think diversity is good. But at the same time, doesnt need to be in everything. But having no diversity would definitely set back the world into a worse way of thinking

I think Disney is on the right track when they make new stories that highlight different cultures (thinking of Moana and Encanto and etc). I think they're on the wrong track when they squeeze diversity into stories where it doesn't make sense (i.e. Beauty in the Beast set in medieval France) and try to shoehorn people from different cultures into French cultural norms.

In the big picture, though, it should be viewed as an 'overcorrection' in an area where correction is needed, so fair enough. Hopefully we'll get past the stage where we need only Chinese people in movies set in China and full diversity in movies set in European locations. Either way we have bigger things to worry about.

As for Snow White...it is more fantasy than it is European so I don't mind seeing them mix things up a little there, but it does seem to me that Snow White should be Caucasian if you're going to remake it. Better still, given the many questionable associations and the fact that it's not really that a great of a story to begin with...just let it die. Does every Disney movie really need to live forever? Not even SE is dumb enough to remake, say, Final Fantasy 2...and that's more or less what's going on here.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I just think it's inaccurate to claim that Russia didn't come a major player in European affairs until the 20th century. They are intertwined in it.

KodyKeir posted...

Doesn't exactly prove your point. With some exceptions, they were Europe's whipping boy.

In short, they were a major player...but they were often ineffectually led or lagging technologically or having different priorities. They took down Napoleon, although their 'home turf' certainly helped overcome their leadership issues there. Their 20th century modernization took them from troubled major player to near-superpower, although they continue to have structural problems if you look past their brute militarism.

Don't do it

Do dwarves need to be retired as a mythical race because of the negative associations with the word? Is Gimli OK? I don't really see any difference between him and the Snow White dwarves except that the SW dwarves are more comic.

Personally I would start the movie with a short disclaimer stating that the "dwarves" are a mythical race that appear regularly in classic fantasy and should not be associated with real-life little people the same way that giants in fantasy aren't associated with real-life people who have gigantism. Snow White without the dwarves wouldn't be Snow White.

We're vaxxed and boosted. At this point I'm much more scared of my kids having zero social skills and experiences than I am of the status of COVID in two months. (Frankly, two months from now SHOULD be a fairly decent time to go post-Omicron peak) I see active social problems in the kids, though: this pandemic has lasted a LONG time in the context of school agers. They don't really know how to talk to their peers/maintain friendships anymore, and they were decent/developing at the start.

If we come down with COVID before we go we'll call it off: we aren't going to knowingly endanger others or spread anything. But the risks of continuing to do nothing at home are rising. Will Disney solve those? No...but new experiences will help, and it's not as if COVID will be gone in 6 months. Or a year. Or ever, probably. This is the world we live in now.

Jen0125 posted...

Plague rats

Well-adjusted plague rats. :)

Good deal.

I'm just hoping that the 3D rides/etc don't fall in my kids' definition of 'scary'. TBD. :)

Going with the kids in a couple months. They don't like rides that are 'scary' in any way. I expect this will suck, because those are probably the only things I would have enjoyed.

Ferarri619 posted...

I think you're probably right, but I also think here's this narrative being pushed around that if Putin takes Ukraine, it's the equivalent of letting Hitler take France and that Putin will expand like Hitler did.

Agreed that's a false narrative. If Putin ever touches a NATO country it IS WW3...so that won't happen. Putin is an old-style monarch who wants to dominant the countries surrounding him; he knows the world isn't possible.

Yellow posted...

Wars have started over less... the invasion of a US ally is not a bad start.

Right, but many (most?) wars are started for bad reasons. There are two things countries need to consider when starting a war. One, is there a good reason? Invasion of an ally is better reason than usual. Two, what is the likely outcome? Not good: it's on Russia's doorstep and the US isn't in an good political situation to sustain a deadly war without a direct threat to us. The US has not been thinking through #2 in the past couple decades.

Zeus posted...

Apparently diplomacy is never the answer, and any attempt at normalizing relations with another super-power is "sucking up"

Obama tried diplomacy directly in his first few years and got a couple treaties signed. Trump...talked about Putin positively. That's not diplomacy. And this can't be discussed without bringing up the election interference.

Zeus posted...

Especially since, as you note, nobody is going to start anything huge over Ukraine.

I agree with you on this one. Unfortunately for...

fishy071 posted...

I already know I won't live long, so I'm ready for death. I'm just afraid the death will be painful. However, I don't think many people are ready for death and annihilation.

Do you live in Ukraine? Maybe even in the army? Godspeed/good luck. You're stuck in a terrible situation: the best to you and yours.

Sahuagin posted...

seems to be Thurl Ravenscroft who died over 15 years ago

Huh....look at that. Maybe I just discovered who he was this year then an got mixed up? :)

KodyKeir posted...

The West actually made significant commitments to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression in exchange for their drawdown of Soviet era armaments, which they did expecting us to be there, which we haven't.

You also forgot that the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of the Donetsk came at a time when Moscow Mitch had decided the senate would say no to anything and everything Barry was asking for, leaving Vlad free to make plays across the board (Syria for example)

Yeah, I edited to "NATO-level" commitments, but you beat me to it. Commitments were made, but they were made the fate of Ukraine was already sealed by Crimea...which was my earlier point. Once we didn't act (i.e. send in troops) to defend Crimea this outcome was more or less inevitable. McConnell shares some blame there, maybe. but - frankly - the calculus was the same then as it was today: the US and NATO simply weren't/aren't going to start WW3 over Ukraine and Putin is willing to call that bluff. This result has always been inevitable if Russia chose to focus on 'spheres of influence'.

Bigger picture: NATO should have faded away after the end of the Cold War. It probably would have if NATO didn't expand into eastern europe, and it definitely would have if Russia chosen to integrate with the West rather than return to antagonism. (Mostly Russia's fault, although the expansion was a questionably timed strategic decision) But here we are. If Russia is going to focus on NATO and attack non-NATO countries, then we are darn well going to keep NATO strong and oppose them, and Russia is going to know exactly where the line is (the NATO "border") for better or worse.