Granted, but I will defend the DC of Alien 3 and also Prometheus. Alien 4 maybe not, it has parts I like but some really awful parts too.
I mean I like Alien 3 (only ever seen theatrical) and Prometheus, but I don’t see why it’s hard to believe they could be topped. Especially if you’re a Prometheus fan, Covenant was basically that but better.
It’s not a high bar.
AVPR is at about the same level as the first Friday the 13th.
Covenant’s the best since Aliens.
Just setting the record straight here.
This isn’t a great way to put it, but I agree in some ways. Certain debates don’t deserve a common ground - somewhere in between isn’t always the best place to be. But I do believe it is important to engage with the other side so as to at least reach a point of understanding.
Well, opinions and debates have different qualities. Opinions are informed by facts, colored by your basic values/morality/outlook/etc. There’s a common modern refrain that everyone has a different opinion, and nobody needs to bother with facts because facts are opinions too. Which leads to bullshit debates and pointless yelling and name-calling because what else could it lead to.
But if you can agree to the same set of facts, and have an argument about how those facts can be interpreted based on personal values, that’s a debate worth having. But an opinion that throws facts out the window as step 1? Yeah, it really is trash not worth bothering with. For example, we shouldn’t really be debating whether or not there’s a global warming trend anymore – the only purpose that serves is to misinform people who might not have known the facts on that matter are long-settled. Engaging in trash debates spreads trash opinions, no matter which side you’re on.
Exactly. I was just think about how political debates should be about what the right solutions are for different problems, not about whether the problems exist in the first place.
According to Fo, I’m female. Whether that actually makes me female is up for you to decide.
Yikes.
https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
Sidenote: This is not to be anti-Google or pro-Apple or pro-/anti-anything. These sorts of ideas exist in many many companies in this country and I’m sure just as many abroad. I am 100% sure that Apple might have these problems in the same amount or maybe even worse. This happens to all corporations. It’s a systemic issue.
I found myself agreeing with one of the guy’s main arguments, which is that there is a specific difference in gender regarding whether a person has an interest in people as opposed to things. See this for why that is, and a fascinating look at just the sort of problem this guy has encountered at Google. In short, there is a huge difference in genders in this specific area, and the cause for this single difference may be more biological than cultural. This in turn could force a company to resort to ever more aggressive policing of microagressions and perceived sexism in an attempt to attract more women to an area of a company that realistically will never reach complete employment equality.
Now, the 10 page ‘screed’ has many other issues and I’m not defending them, but it seems like the response to the essay is as problematic as the essay itself. I’ve found that a good rule of thumb for anyone interested in a serious discussion online is to always assume the best of the person you’re debating, and always seek to de-escalate the conversation in order to avoid ad homninems and other petty attacks. I find it concerning that the comments for this airing of grievances do not attempt this sort of thing, but are exactly the type of virtue-signaling that conservatives hate about liberals.
And yes, I get the issue that a member of a privileged group is complaining that his privilege is under attack, and I have no interest in defending his privileged status. But he clearly thinks there’s a problem, and a whole lot of people who elected our current government feel the same way. At some point it becomes counterproductive to antagonize conservatives for losing the culture wars, and it becomes important to find some common ground. This isn’t a zero sum game.
I always appreciate efforts to find common ground with conservatives like myself and think that you eloquently explained why it is so important to try to promote fruitful discussion and civil discourse.
No need in finding common ground with people whose opinions are trash.
This isn’t a great way to put it, but I agree in some ways. Certain debates don’t deserve a common ground - somewhere in between isn’t always the best place to be. But I do believe it is important to engage with the other side so as to at least reach a point of understanding.
A “new broom” has it’s benefits but when it spends six months trying to sweep up with the stick end, it’s probably better to have an old broom.
Yeah, exactly.
I made a post about this a few months back (I bet you could find it yhwx), but while an “outsider” is a nice idea on paper, in practice we’re seeing everyday how wrongheaded it is. You can’t shake up a system if you don’t know the first thing about it. At least some experience is needed (that of course isn’t to say that the person with the most experience is the best choice, but it also isn’t too say the opposite either).
Yes. It should be a factor in considering candidates for any job, including and especially the highest office in the land.
Are people really going to say the next President should be someone with zero experience after how well the current one is doing?
I think the idea is “Trump won, and he’s a well known celebrity, that must be why he won, let’s try it too.” But Trump winning was a total fluke, and if Zuckerberg, or The Rock, or Mark Cuban, or whoever else actually runs in 2020, they’ll be destroyed.
Well, I think what’s happened is the bar has officially been lowered in terms of qualifications for the job. In the past there were always certain things you needed to be to get serious consideration. Trump was a fluke in some ways, but he’s definitely opened the flood gates. It’s clear people just don’t care about experience anymore (amongst other things).
No. Not all people suck, sometimes it can be nice to be in the company of others and share an experience.
Dex’s CG holds up terribly. Also he has a moustache. And a butt crack. Plutt wins this round.
Also
The only reason people don’t complain about TPM being a rehash is because that movie has far bigger issues.
Anakin = extreme baby Luke
Padme = new Leia
Qui-Gon = new Obi-Wan
Jar Jar = stupid C-3PO
Darth Maul = bad ass Vader
Nute Gunray = wussy Tarkin
Boss Nass = noncriminal Jabba
and of course Ric Olie = handsome Wedge
The debate that will never die - now with comparisons that barely make sense! Wedge = pilot, Poe = pilot, that obviously means Wedge = Poe!!!
I saw Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX (which is equivalent to something like 11-15K I think) in Rhode Island. What does that mean?
It means a 20 dollar ticket and another 20 dollars on concessions.
$14 ticket, $0 concessions. A bargain honestly.
I really don’t see how 14 dollars for a movie ticket is a bargain. I know that the times have passed me by, but the movie theatre being a 50 dollar outing for a small family is a reality that I just can’t accept.
97% of the way there.
At my current posting rate, the (estimated) big day would be August 5, 2017.
Lair
I saw Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX (which is equivalent to something like 11-15K I think) in Rhode Island. What does that mean?
It means a 20 dollar ticket and another 20 dollars on concessions.
$14 ticket, $0 concessions. A bargain honestly.
I saw Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX (which is equivalent to something like 11-15K I think) in Rhode Island. What does that mean?
The screen was the size of Rhode Island. Not that the screen is so big, just that Rhode Island is so small.
I quite appreciate the state’s size. It’s concise - something that I can’t say for most states unfortunately.
I saw Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX (which is equivalent to something like 11-15K I think) in Rhode Island. What does that mean?
Personally I think the outrage is pretty premature. But the best I can tell there is at least one legitimate criticism of the concept (rather than the nonexistent execution). Essentially, the idea being that showing an alternate history where things are worse to some extent absolves the problems of the present (as opposed to a future story where things are worse, which would be a cautionary tale). Basically it’s a thing where you can point to it and say “look how much worse race relations could be, so don’t complain!”
The same criticism applies to the Man in High Castle though not sure why the outrage wasn’t there (probably a combination of a lot of different reasons).
Shatner’s such an asshole.
Interesting development and interesting choice.
Trevorrow and Connolly didn’t even write Book of Henry though.
Sorry, only complaints about this movie are allowed.
Or people proudly declaring they have no interest in it.
The only reason people don’t complain about TPM being a rehash is because that movie has far bigger issues.
Love is the ultimate drug.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uEMOeDZsA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR_qa3Ohwls
I liked the John Wayne one except the girl. But the girl was kinda the main character so a mixed reception is the best it could get from me.
Hailee Steinfeld is fantastic in the 2010 one.
Out of curiosity, what would you give the original true grit? I’ve only seen it. It was “pretty good.” But from what I’ve heard the 2010 film isn’t so much a remake of it as it is a new and more faithful take on the original novel.
As someone who’s read the novel, this is absolutely right. I thought the original was okay but the new one was pretty damn good.