Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 838

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

James Gunn is a perfect example of someone shut down for political reasons over “offensive” comments that no one should’ve been surprised by. The alt-right hate mob and the left-wing hate mob are in alignment when it comes to deplatforming people.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I actually agree with that. I wasn’t referring to her and I meant when I said that they’re one in the same that both sides agreed on firing James Gunn.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

i think comedians spent so much time of their lives telling jokes and obviously dealing with comedy that most if not all of the regular jokes aren’t really funny to them anymore, and i think that that’s why they embrace the ‘absurd’ and shocking jokes with minorities and all of that. i don’t think it’s fucked up because it means that if they’re making the joke it means that they too think it’s absurd and shocking.

There’s a way to tell a joke about shocking subject matter in either good or bad nature. (Saying people have “downs syndrome” as an insult is obviously just in poor taste, and honestly not even a joke.)

i highly doubt comedians think of ‘down syndrome’ as an actual insult. it’s funny to some because assholes and stupid people would use it as an insult. so the comedian is indirectly making fun of those people.

It depends on the context of the joke. In this scenario, where the context is seemingly a sincere apology, it definitely does not come across as anything but rude and uncaring.

do you think that what happened to james gunn, for example, was fair?

The situations are simply not analogous. I wouldn’t have had a problem with the Tonight Show cancelling a James Gunn appearance the day after those jokes resurfaced.

i wasn’t talking about norm’s case since i haven’t read anything about it, or any other specific case for that matter. i’m talking in more general terms. and you haven’t really answered if you think that what happened to james gunn was fair.

Collipso, not every situation is the same so I’ve never said anything about a one size fits all solution. Comedians with a voice have a power that comes with responsibility. If they punch down and further harmful mindsets, they should be aware that their audiences might not like it. We should be careful when policing art but just because you’re making “art” doesn’t give you a get out of jail free card for doing and saying any manner of terrible and harmful things.

We were talking about Norm so I gave my thoughts on his case, where I felt the recompense (something incredibly minor) was easily justified. Gunn is a very different situation and does not seem to be very well justified (I’ve talked about this before at length).

Author
Time

I actually just admit that I give artists a pass for most things short of outright criminality. Too few talented people in this world.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I actually just admit that I give artists a pass for most things short of outright criminality. Too few talented people in this world.

As Roman Polanski’s personal lawyer, I agree with most of that sentiment.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

I believe in people being brought to justice for crimes. Rosemary’s Baby is still a favorite of mine. I don’t discard things because the person behind it did something monstrous.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Oh no, Chinatown’s a personal favorite. I was just snarking for snark’s sake.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I definitely didn’t infer that argument from anyone’s posts.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Basically it’s your argument of “famous people/corporations with an interest in maintaining popular appeal are too interested in avoiding even the appearance of endorsing something their fans may find reprehensible.” Which brings us back to the counter-example of Nike 😉

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

So, Article 11 and Article 13 have passed the vote from a couple days ago. I take it that due to the very nature of this website, it’s going to region blocked in the entirety of the EU. Somehow I don’t think the people who wanted Article 13 past had good copyright “infringement” (like all the 35mm preservations this site talks about) in mind. TBH, I don’t think anybody had that kind of thing in mind. This law is probably going to make fan preservations in the EU impossible without a good proxy/vpn to bypass the EU’s internet restrictions.

The Bunny, The Bunny, woah, I love The Bunny

Possessed said:
Danfun, do you also love the soup and the bread, or just the bunny?

SilverWook said:
Use of the bunny outside off topic is getting out of hand.
When outside off topic, use a link to the bunny if you really feel the need to invoke it.
Warnings will be next if some restraint is not shown.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Assuming everyone follows the rules, this site neither hosts nor links copyrighted content to any extent that exceeds typically defined fair use (screenshots, etc). All we do is talk about it.

PM sent.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

A Miserable Norm Macdonald goes on The View: 'I never did anything’

“What I was talking about was Chris Hardwick, a particular comedian, a friend of mine. And if 500 women go against a man obviously the guy is guilty. In Chris Hardwick’s case, it’s one woman against one man. So I was saying I thought it was good … Chris Hardwick is as rehabilitated as you can get. Yet he still tells me he can’t walk down the street without people yelling stuff at him.”

“It’s always bad when you have to apologize for the apology,” Macdonald said. “There used to be a word we would all say to mean stupid that we wouldn’t say any more. You know the word I’m talking about? Stupidly I was about to say that word and I stopped and [wondered] what the right word was to say, and I said a different word that was equally [offensive]. I realized at that moment I said something unforgivable…The remark I made about people with Down syndrome is terrible.”

It’s just frustrating to see a guy who did nothing but try to respond honestly to an interview question he didn’t particularly want to answer anyway be treated so harshly for it. I mean, from his perspective, he’s seen longtime friends lose their jobs, one wrongly accused (more or less), so he’s had to deal with that personally. It makes sense to me why he made the comments he did.

Are people arguing Norm has a right to be on The Tonight Show?

I’m just bummed a favorite comedian of mine was cancelled over a controversy that amounts to a guy standing up for his friends, and had to address that controversy on The View of all things rather than on The Tonight Show. Of course they had the right to cancel him. I just wish they didn’t.

“After a time, you may find that having, is not so pleasing a thing after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.” - Spock

Author
Time
 (Edited)

And here I thought Manafort wouldn’t even be offered a cooperation agreement because he was a big enough fish to be worth all the effort of the investigation to begin with (Trump’s insistence that his campaign manager was a low-level volunteer who mostly just got coffee notwithstanding). Turns out, not so much. There are bigger fish in Mueller’s sights after all. And there aren’t many fish bigger than Manafort who aren’t family.

What’s Manfort’s value in a cooperation deal? Aside from the obvious (Trump, Russian Oligarchs, Roger Stone, Russian Intelligence, GOP platform changes and other campaign work including other candidates), there’s this: aside from a few missteps around Flynn, Pence has done a pretty good job keeping an arm’s length between himself and the crime syndicate he works with, at least in public. His only other widely-known direct link, aside from Flynn, is Manafort.

Certain serious crimes cannot be prosecuted at all without a minimum of two witnesses.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Just following up on some predictions from March, because circumstances change…

CatBus said:

If I were a betting man, I’d say Mueller’s investigation, before it’s shut down, will still lead to more evidence of arguably legal/arguably illegal collusion, but few if any charges filed on these issues. This in itself will be a fairly huge scandal for some and not for others. He will also file charges (and in fact, he already has) of obstruction/lying to investigators/witness tampering/destruction of evidence which are not about the collusion itself, but about the coverup. Again, I predict this will be a fairly huge scandal for some and not for others. Lastly, I predict a raft of charges of money laundering/tax fraud/bribery/corruption/RICO-type things (such as those charges already filed against Manafort), again not really about the collusion itself, but about illegal things uncovered during the course of the investigation.

Papadopoulos: Pleaded guilty to making false statements.
Patten: Pleaded guilty to failure to register as a foreign agent.
Manafort: Pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the US, various financial crimes including money laundering, and witness tampering.
Cohen: Pleaded guilty to fraud and campaign finance violations.
van der Zwaan: Pleaded guilty to making false statements.
Gates: Pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the US and making false statements.
Pinedo: Pleaded guilty to identity fraud.
Flynn: Pleaded guilty to making false statements.

At the end you’ll have a fairly unsatisfactory conclusion: the Trump campaign will be exposed to have colluded with Russian intelligence services in an arguably illegal manner, many staffers and high ranking officials will be charged with a broad range of crimes, from obstruction to money laundering. And Trump supporters will still say that collusion is not a crime and this was all a witch hunt by the liberal Comey/Mueller/Rosenstein cabal, a fishing expedition that merely netted a few dozen high-ranking or cabinet-level bad apples who were just low-level volunteers after all.

So far so good. No real corruption or RICO stuff yet, and the cabinet hasn’t quite been breached, but the show’s far from over and that all seems more likely than before IMO. Rudy’s even already telegraphed Team Trump’s new approach to formerly-decent-and-honest-witch-hunt-victim Manafort with his blatant Tweet revision: “the President did nothing wrong and Paul Manafort will tell the truth”, the party line changing 180 degrees in full public view like fine Soviet clockwork.

And, most importantly, I’m still predicting the Republicans will hold the House and Senate in 2018 (although I’m predicting Democrats will win a landslide in terms of votes cast), and that this is when the Mueller investigation will definitely be shut down if it hasn’t been already. So regardless of charges filed, impeachment will never be considered for any officials at any level, and I think Trump will have a strong chance of re-election in 2020. The House and Senate may, however, decide to launch an investigation into Mueller.

Haven’t changed my mind here either, but this is still prediction-land. I currently have Democrats nationally winning by a spectacular 11 point mega-landslide margin, but still narrowly failing to gain enough seats to take control of the House, and losing a seat in the Senate. When the Democratic advantage hits 12, things get interesting on both fronts, and that’s a possibility I wasn’t considering even remotely plausible back in March.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

I doubt that Democrats will fail to take a majority in the House. They won’t take the Senate, though.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

I doubt that Democrats will fail to take a majority in the House. They won’t take the Senate, though.

Most analysts put the threshold at 8-9% (8-9% Democratic victory means coin flip for House control, due to gerrymandering). Most analysts do not even attempt to account for Russian interference. I added 3% for that, based on 2016, but that’s a big wildcard. It may be too much, it may not be enough. But if Democrats only win by 7%, everyone agrees they’re not taking the House.

The fact that I have Democrats only losing one seat in the Senate means I think they’re going to have a strong year. Gaining three though? Yeesh.

Incidentally, 7% was the margin Republicans won by in the “Republican Revolution” that swept them to power in 94. It just shows the power of the gerrymander: having a message that resonates with 7% more voters than the other party could mean either an unquestionable game-changing mandate, or narrow loss, depending on which party you belong to.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

FiveThirtyEight puts a Democratic majority in the House at an 83% chance with a median of a 36-seat gain.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

The only parenting decision that I support is not having kids.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

FiveThirtyEight puts a Democratic majority in the House at an 83% chance with a median of a 36-seat gain.

They don’t take Russian interference into account at all, otherwise I’d be pretty close to agreeing.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)