DominicCobb

If those shots were flipped, it wasn’t an accident. If they weren’t, why change them?

Jeebus said:

What a dick.

I mean, I’m kind of with him there.

I thought the 12 year conceit added an almost indescribable sense of reality in its passage of time. Yeah, I know, how is it indescribable if that fact is plainly obvious? Well I just felt watching it that there was something really profound and affecting about seeing the story of someone’s life play out in that way beyond just the simple fact of it. I wish I could explain it better, but, as I said, it’s kinda indescribable. More something experienced.

Also, re: coffee’s point, it’s not like it was a documentary where they were filming constantly. More like they’d get together once a year to film scenes.

I can’t wait for frevious to like TLJ and backpeddle on all this naysaying, and then for RLM to put out some bs “review” that makes him slip right back into the naysaying.

NeverarGreat said:

DominicCobb said:

NeverarGreat said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

On a related note, this has been bumping around in my mind for a while now, and I just don’t like it. Trump is our first atheist President. Yeah, I know, he passes for Presbyterian–a lot of us have to pass for something for various reasons, and most of us are way more convincing than he is. But leaving that aside for a moment, what “bad reputation” do atheists have in the larger culture? Let’s see: amoral, untrustworthy sociopaths who think they’re inherently superior to everyone else. Uh-oh. Oh yeah, and at least during the Cold War they were also Russian agents. Igh.

So I’m really, really hoping, in spite of his ongoing collapse in popular support, that when Trump eventually slouches off stage left, that whatever mysterious hypnotic “I’m one of you” hold he has on white Christians remains firmly in place. Because otherwise they’ll say: “That’s what happens when you put an atheist in charge,” and we’re back to the days of debating if atheists can actually be Americans. That’s all assuming that the evangelical support isn’t due to some speed-the-apocalypse-by-supporting-the-antichrist theory, but I’ve been assured by people who actually travel in evangelical circles that this is not the case. And I checked with multiple people, because I didn’t believe their assurances the first few times 😉

I’m with you there, except you’re forgetting Obama.

Wikipedia (yes, I know, thank you) says this:

Obama is a Protestant Christian whose religious views developed in his adult life.[77] He wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he “was not raised in a religious household”. He described his mother, raised by non-religious parents, as being detached from religion, yet “in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known.” He described his father as a “confirmed atheist” by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as “a man who saw religion as not particularly useful.” Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand “the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.”[78]

In January 2008, Obama told Christianity Today: “I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life.”[79] On September 27, 2010, Obama released a statement commenting on his religious views saying “I’m a Christian by choice. My family didn’t – frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. And my mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me in the church. So I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”[80][81]

Obama met Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright in October 1987, and became a member of Trinity in 1992.[82] He resigned from Trinity in May 2008 during his first presidential campaign after some of Wright’s statements were criticized.[83] The Obama family has attended several Protestant churches since moving to Washington, D.C., in 2009, including Shiloh Baptist Church and St. John’s Episcopal Church, as well as Evergreen Chapel at Camp David, but are not habitual church-goers.[84][85][86]

And here’s Trump:

Religion

The Trump family were originally Lutherans in Germany,[52] and his mother’s upbringing was Presbyterian in Scotland.[53] His parents married in a Manhattan Presbyterian church in 1936.[54] As a child, he attended Sunday School at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens, and had his confirmation there.[55][55] In the 1970s, his family joined the Marble Collegiate Church (a New York City affiliate of the Reformed Church in America) in Manhattan.[56] The pastor at that church, Norman Vincent Peale, author of The Power of Positive Thinking and The Art of Living, ministered to Trump’s family and mentored him until Peale’s death in 1993.[57][56] Trump, who is Presbyterian,[58][59] has cited Peale and his works during interviews when asked about the role of religion in his personal life.[56]

After marrying his first wife Ivana in 1977 at Marble Collegiate Church, he attended that church until 2013.[60][55] In 2016, Trump visited Bethesda-by-the-Sea, an Episcopal church, for Christmas services.[61] Trump has said that he participates in Holy Communion. Beyond that, he has not asked God for forgiveness, stating: “I think if I do something wrong, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture.”[62]

Trump refers to his ghostwritten book The Art of the Deal, a bestseller following publication in 1987, as “my second favorite book of all time, after the Bible. Nothing beats the Bible.”[63][64] In a 2016 speech to Liberty University, he referred to “Two Corinthians” instead of “Second Corinthians”, eliciting chuckles from the audience.[65] Despite this, The New York Times reported that Evangelical Christians nationwide thought “that his heart was in the right place, that his intentions for the country were pure”.[66]

Outside of his church affiliations, Trump has relationships with a number of Christian spiritual leaders, including Florida pastor Paula White, who has been described as his “closest spiritual confidant”.[67] In 2015, he asked for and received a blessing from Greek Orthodox priest Emmanuel Lemelson[68] and, in 2016, released a list of his religious advisers, including James Dobson, Jerry Falwell Jr., Ralph Reed and others.[69] Referring to his daughter Ivanka’s conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said in 2015: “I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that […] it wasn’t in the plan but I am very glad it happened.”[70]

Now do I think that Obama is probably more on the agnostic side of the coin? Yes. But he definitively states that he is a Christian, and has explicitly said ‘I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life.’ Although Obama is good at weaseling his way around a question and exaggerating when necessary, I do not doubt that he values the truth and wouldn’t simply lie.

Obviously Obama seems like He who is without sin himself next to Trump. There’s no doubt he values the truth. But I also don’t doubt the very good chance he’s lying about this I wouldn’t consider it weaseling either (this isn’t a lie he’s just made up in interviews, it’s a planned and consistent one). And I don’t blame him. If he didn’t self identify as a Christian (and make it sound like he really meant it), he would never have been president. I don’t think it’d be very hard for him to pretend (I’ve done it myself with certain members of my family), not all atheists are militant about their beliefs. I think he probably just tries to appreciate the good will towards man and community aspect, and doesn’t think too much about the whole God part.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But I’m probably not.

Like I said, he’s probably more agnostic than he’d ever admit. It’s terrible that in the US, you have to lie about your religion if you’re anything other than Christian or a branch of it. But Trump is the exception, isn’t he? Perhaps if the ‘horrible because he’s an atheist’ thing doesn’t stick, future presidents will have an easier time of it.

Honestly, I think the people who value Christianity in a president and still voted for him have just deluded themselves into believing that lie (and all the others of course). I’m fairly certain that if Trump was an out atheist he wouldn’t have won.

I’m with you though on the effed up emphasis on religion voters place on candidates. I do think we’re moving in the right direction (hard to believe now that Kennedy was such a big deal) and I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a Jewish president in the next couple decades (though anything past that might be a hard pill for some to swallow).

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Darth Id said:

Jetrell Fo said:

New motto: Trust no-one, watch out only for myself, ridicule and publicly despise anyone that does not share my views because they matter more than yours. bkev was right, this is Frink’s section of the forum, he has set the standards in it.

My new motto: YOUR MOTTO SUCKS!

Blow it out your wazoo, I’m in no mood to contend with your crappy opinion of everything and anything, that you have no concern over.

warbler, duracell, suspicous, frink

Look, I’m blowing off steam, I’m ticked off. I’m allowed. I’ll get over it. 3 of you make no effort whatsoever to interact with me positively ever. All I get from you 3 is the “one right after the other” talking smack. You don’t have to like me but it doesn’t warrant your crap talk either. I’ve worked really hard while I’ve been back to stay calm. Either show a little compassion or leave me alone.

Ender, you of all people should know better, since you’re a Behavioral Health Nurse. If you don’t antagonize friends of stressed out patients then you shouldn’t be antagonizing others to make light of someone else’s stress.

I’m not sure what you mean unless you are perhaps misusing the word “antagonize”. I suspect you mean that I am encouraging friends to antagonize you. I will say this, as a behavioral health nurse, that doesn’t magically fill me with a voluminous sense of overwhelming compassion. Yes, I have a certain sense of patience and love for my patients that many others lack, but it’s not always the same. Something I actually get very frustrated with my patients about is their common sense of victimhood. About 90% of my patients feel that their life sucks because of everyone else’s choices, not about their own. Perhaps I don’t always go about it the right way here online, but it’s a trait of yours that also aggravates me. You seem to miss the fact that you bring a lot of this misery upon yourself. You are obviously a really nice guy, but just like too much of anything, your niceties often get you into conflict with others.

Let me point out a few things about myself. 1) I hardly ever post anymore. Though I’ve increased in the past few months, it’s not nearly what it used to be. Though I read this forum daily, I often go days without posting. That said, 2) I usually come out of hiding to post something only when I feel it’s important. So why do I post criticisms of Jetrell Fo, then? Is it really that important? 3) Yes, I feel it is because there are four traits you exhibit that annoy me: a feeling that there is a conspiracy to elevate TV’s Frink here that even involves the moderators; you misperceive other people’s motives with incredible frequency; you feel the need to correct everyone else’s behavior issues, which are usually minor and automoderated by the forum culture, while failing to conform to said culture yourself; you are so defensive that you refuse to actually self-reflect (in spite of your thread) on what you could be doing that is getting others irritated with you. Your first day back, people were already getting annoyed with you. 4) While you show these traits often, sometimes it’s with great moderation, but other times it is with such vigor that I cannot help but try to make apparent to you what you are doing that is causing such trouble, usually with a little humor.

Let me give examples of the above grievances I have towards your behavior.

Frink Worship and Mod Collusion

How often have you said, “Oh, I see that Frink runs the forum and the moderators aren’t doing anything about. Everyone worships him. Wo is me!”? Guess what? Off Topic was unmoderated for several years, and it was fine. Sure, we got in arguments. I can name everyone that caused my blood pressure to rise: Darth Id, imperialscum, Lord Haseo, DominicCobb, walkingdork, CP3S, TheBoost, Bingowings…and TV’s Frink! Yet, I don’t hold a grudge against any of them, we’ve usually worked out our differences in an amicable manner, and all was well. However, you came along, and you became so insistent that things were not going the way you saw fit, and now Off Topic is (sort of) moderated. If the mods feel that the situation can right itself, I think they trust it to do so, and only you have proven that such is not the case. They are not indulging Frink. They just don’t care enough to intervene, and hope that the people here can actually act like adults.

Misperceived Motives

How often have you targeted Warbler for something you don’t approve of? Warbler is a great guy. I hope he won’t mind me saying this, but he’s also a bit of a different guy. His thinking is very concrete at times. He is very black and white. This sometimes reflects in his political views. He also can be very sensitive about certain topics and really blow up. I have been here long enough and read through enough old threads to know that he has also been the victim of a great deal of bullying. Have you not noticed how often Darth Id mocks him? I think I can say with great certainty that when he posts something like, “Cut that out or I’ll report you,” he is not baiting. Such is not his style. He is not a man of subtlety. He is direct and means what he says. But you have to create drama, implying that a conspiracy is afoot, and even create a whole new thread that basically was targeting Warbler. Now I know how often you rush to the defense of those you see as being bullied, so forgive me for defending my friend when I see you creating a stupid thread that specifically calls him out for something I know he is not doing. This is one of many examples where you think somebody is doing something sneaky. Another example might be the belief in multiple socks in existence. You see motivation, sneakiness, and scheming where there is none.

Backseat Moderating/Correcting Others’ Behaviors

It seems that you cannot help but try to get involved in everyone’s disputes. You try to be a peacemaker, but sometimes it’s just better to let others hammer out their own problems. See the above example involving Warbler, generalfrevious, and Alderaan. Just learn when to keep a lid on it, and trust other adults and the moderators to make the situation right. Sometimes my oldest two kids (twins) love to correct, often with great rudeness, the behavior of the younger two kids. I tell them all the time that the younger two already have parents and don’t need any extras. Is it not the same principle here? We have grownups who can usually act like they’re all grown up, and when they can’t, the mods help out. But somehow, you have to be that “extra parent”. Back off.

Over-defensiveness

Finally, while you’ve admitted some faults on here, they’re usually silly and self-deprecating and wrong. However, when anyone points out legitimately what is causing friction on your part, you fail to acknowledge that maybe they’re right, that maybe a character flaw is coming into play, that maybe you could change something about yourself instead of trying to change others, and that maybe you’d get along better. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if I don’t need to provide any more example here. I think your reply just might be the example I need.

Look, Off Topic will always be a little chaotic. That’s the way most people here like it. It’s a culture that has developed on this site. You are not going to single-handedly change that. If you don’t like it, find another place to discuss topics of passion. I am conservative, remember; I don’t even like reading the politics thread anymore. I hate Trump, yes, but I get pretty annoyed at some of the stupid generalizations of conservatism or religion that I read in that thread. So I usually don’t say anything. There was a time just a few years ago when most of the frequenters were conservatives, and we ran the thread. Now it’s run by liberals. So since I don’t post much anymore and don’t want to get caught up in a heated argument, especially since I know I’m drastically outnumbered these days, I stay away. If you don’t like the overwhelming disagreement, stay away from the thread. If you don’t like the nature of Off Topic, stay away from this part of the forum. If you don’t like the culture of originaltrilogy.com, go to another forum. Don’t keep coming back for punishment and repeating the same errors over and over that I have previously mentioned.

Let me say this last parting bit. I actually do like you and think you’re probably a really great guy in real life. And I will even say that TV’s Frink’s politics and humor have gotten on my nerves many, many times. We’ve fought pretty viciously in the past. But I also think that he’s a good guy, just a different guy than me. I don’t think he ever wants to hurt anyone. I think he just tries to use humor to point out people’s foibles, a trait you don’t much care for. Just because both of you annoy me sometimes doesn’t mean either of you are bad people. I choose to like you both, and I try to put up with those traits that can be irritating. Stay you, keep being kind to everyone, and just tone it down on a few things, and I won’t criticize you anymore.

Post of the Year.

I spoke too soon…

Frank your Majesty said:

Maybe he wanted to say “Good God 😉”. In that case it could mean whatever he wants and he could discuss about the hidden meanning for several pages. “LOL”

NeverarGreat said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

On a related note, this has been bumping around in my mind for a while now, and I just don’t like it. Trump is our first atheist President. Yeah, I know, he passes for Presbyterian–a lot of us have to pass for something for various reasons, and most of us are way more convincing than he is. But leaving that aside for a moment, what “bad reputation” do atheists have in the larger culture? Let’s see: amoral, untrustworthy sociopaths who think they’re inherently superior to everyone else. Uh-oh. Oh yeah, and at least during the Cold War they were also Russian agents. Igh.

So I’m really, really hoping, in spite of his ongoing collapse in popular support, that when Trump eventually slouches off stage left, that whatever mysterious hypnotic “I’m one of you” hold he has on white Christians remains firmly in place. Because otherwise they’ll say: “That’s what happens when you put an atheist in charge,” and we’re back to the days of debating if atheists can actually be Americans. That’s all assuming that the evangelical support isn’t due to some speed-the-apocalypse-by-supporting-the-antichrist theory, but I’ve been assured by people who actually travel in evangelical circles that this is not the case. And I checked with multiple people, because I didn’t believe their assurances the first few times 😉

I’m with you there, except you’re forgetting Obama.

Wikipedia (yes, I know, thank you) says this:

Obama is a Protestant Christian whose religious views developed in his adult life.[77] He wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he “was not raised in a religious household”. He described his mother, raised by non-religious parents, as being detached from religion, yet “in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known.” He described his father as a “confirmed atheist” by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as “a man who saw religion as not particularly useful.” Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand “the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.”[78]

In January 2008, Obama told Christianity Today: “I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life.”[79] On September 27, 2010, Obama released a statement commenting on his religious views saying “I’m a Christian by choice. My family didn’t – frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. And my mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me in the church. So I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”[80][81]

Obama met Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright in October 1987, and became a member of Trinity in 1992.[82] He resigned from Trinity in May 2008 during his first presidential campaign after some of Wright’s statements were criticized.[83] The Obama family has attended several Protestant churches since moving to Washington, D.C., in 2009, including Shiloh Baptist Church and St. John’s Episcopal Church, as well as Evergreen Chapel at Camp David, but are not habitual church-goers.[84][85][86]

And here’s Trump:

Religion

The Trump family were originally Lutherans in Germany,[52] and his mother’s upbringing was Presbyterian in Scotland.[53] His parents married in a Manhattan Presbyterian church in 1936.[54] As a child, he attended Sunday School at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens, and had his confirmation there.[55][55] In the 1970s, his family joined the Marble Collegiate Church (a New York City affiliate of the Reformed Church in America) in Manhattan.[56] The pastor at that church, Norman Vincent Peale, author of The Power of Positive Thinking and The Art of Living, ministered to Trump’s family and mentored him until Peale’s death in 1993.[57][56] Trump, who is Presbyterian,[58][59] has cited Peale and his works during interviews when asked about the role of religion in his personal life.[56]

After marrying his first wife Ivana in 1977 at Marble Collegiate Church, he attended that church until 2013.[60][55] In 2016, Trump visited Bethesda-by-the-Sea, an Episcopal church, for Christmas services.[61] Trump has said that he participates in Holy Communion. Beyond that, he has not asked God for forgiveness, stating: “I think if I do something wrong, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture.”[62]

Trump refers to his ghostwritten book The Art of the Deal, a bestseller following publication in 1987, as “my second favorite book of all time, after the Bible. Nothing beats the Bible.”[63][64] In a 2016 speech to Liberty University, he referred to “Two Corinthians” instead of “Second Corinthians”, eliciting chuckles from the audience.[65] Despite this, The New York Times reported that Evangelical Christians nationwide thought “that his heart was in the right place, that his intentions for the country were pure”.[66]

Outside of his church affiliations, Trump has relationships with a number of Christian spiritual leaders, including Florida pastor Paula White, who has been described as his “closest spiritual confidant”.[67] In 2015, he asked for and received a blessing from Greek Orthodox priest Emmanuel Lemelson[68] and, in 2016, released a list of his religious advisers, including James Dobson, Jerry Falwell Jr., Ralph Reed and others.[69] Referring to his daughter Ivanka’s conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said in 2015: “I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that […] it wasn’t in the plan but I am very glad it happened.”[70]

Now do I think that Obama is probably more on the agnostic side of the coin? Yes. But he definitively states that he is a Christian, and has explicitly said ‘I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life.’ Although Obama is good at weaseling his way around a question and exaggerating when necessary, I do not doubt that he values the truth and wouldn’t simply lie.

Obviously Obama seems like He who is without sin himself next to Trump. There’s no doubt he values the truth. But I also don’t doubt the very good chance he’s lying about this I wouldn’t consider it weaseling either (this isn’t a lie he’s just made up in interviews, it’s a planned and consistent one). And I don’t blame him. If he didn’t self identify as a Christian (and make it sound like he really meant it), he would never have been president. I don’t think it’d be very hard for him to pretend (I’ve done it myself with certain members of my family), not all atheists are militant about their beliefs. I think he probably just tries to appreciate the good will towards man and community aspect, and doesn’t think too much about the whole God part.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But I’m probably not.

CatBus said:

On a related note, this has been bumping around in my mind for a while now, and I just don’t like it. Trump is our first atheist President. Yeah, I know, he passes for Presbyterian–a lot of us have to pass for something for various reasons, and most of us are way more convincing than he is. But leaving that aside for a moment, what “bad reputation” do atheists have in the larger culture? Let’s see: amoral, untrustworthy sociopaths who think they’re inherently superior to everyone else. Uh-oh. Oh yeah, and at least during the Cold War they were also Russian agents. Igh.

So I’m really, really hoping, in spite of his ongoing collapse in popular support, that when Trump eventually slouches off stage left, that whatever mysterious hypnotic “I’m one of you” hold he has on white Christians remains firmly in place. Because otherwise they’ll say: “That’s what happens when you put an atheist in charge,” and we’re back to the days of debating if atheists can actually be Americans. That’s all assuming that the evangelical support isn’t due to some speed-the-apocalypse-by-supporting-the-antichrist theory, but I’ve been assured by people who actually travel in evangelical circles that this is not the case. And I checked with multiple people, because I didn’t believe their assurances the first few times 😉

I’m with you there, except you’re forgetting Obama.

suspiciouscoffee said:

I also don’t mind the one possible continuity error very much. Let’s just say… something something time travel something. I didn’t know about the error having not watched the entire original run in years (and even then, I was so young that who knows if I even saw them all between the first run and later reruns).

I think at worst it’s a retcon. If we are to believe now that Jack never killed any humans then it’s not hard to imagine that yeah purposefully came just short of it in that episode (it looks like they could be dead but they are all in one piece and this is a cartoon after all so people can survive a lot). The funny thing is I binged watched the whole show very recently and didn’t even notice that myself.

Binge watching was a really interesting experience for me. I was a big fan of Samurai Jack back during its original run, even though I probably only caught a handful of episodes because it seemed like it was never on. Oddly enough, back then I just assumed the whole thing was completely serialized (partly because I had seen the first three which were, and because nearly episode starts more or less en media res and I was too young to understand that concept) and I thought it was a lot darker/more serious too (probably because it was on Toonami and seemed to only be on late at night). The funny thing is that now the fifth season is pretty much what I always thought the show was, and the first four seasons were nothing more than what I always had to take it as (22 minute fun adventures).

TV’s Frink said:

Maybe…it’s only March.

Well, at the very least it’s the best post of the last 12 months*.

*besides maybe Id’s face tattoo post.

Dek Rollins said:

My only nitpicks with the series so far is that Aku’s recast is disappointing (the guy almost has a mexican accent it seems)

Yeah he’s not perfect but what can you do. At least it’s still clearly the same character though.

the fact that they addressed the previously existing TV restraints on Jack’s ability to kill people. Not to mention the fact that he actually did kill multiple non-robot people in the original run.

I thought Jack killing a human for the first time was a pretty compelling development. I think there’s some ambiguity as to what happened there^. It’s certainly possible he killed them and probably the obvious conclusion, but I have no problem with them stepping around that possibility to mine some drama here.

darth_ender said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Darth Id said:

Jetrell Fo said:

New motto: Trust no-one, watch out only for myself, ridicule and publicly despise anyone that does not share my views because they matter more than yours. bkev was right, this is Frink’s section of the forum, he has set the standards in it.

My new motto: YOUR MOTTO SUCKS!

Blow it out your wazoo, I’m in no mood to contend with your crappy opinion of everything and anything, that you have no concern over.

warbler, duracell, suspicous, frink

Look, I’m blowing off steam, I’m ticked off. I’m allowed. I’ll get over it. 3 of you make no effort whatsoever to interact with me positively ever. All I get from you 3 is the “one right after the other” talking smack. You don’t have to like me but it doesn’t warrant your crap talk either. I’ve worked really hard while I’ve been back to stay calm. Either show a little compassion or leave me alone.

Ender, you of all people should know better, since you’re a Behavioral Health Nurse. If you don’t antagonize friends of stressed out patients then you shouldn’t be antagonizing others to make light of someone else’s stress.

I’m not sure what you mean unless you are perhaps misusing the word “antagonize”. I suspect you mean that I am encouraging friends to antagonize you. I will say this, as a behavioral health nurse, that doesn’t magically fill me with a voluminous sense of overwhelming compassion. Yes, I have a certain sense of patience and love for my patients that many others lack, but it’s not always the same. Something I actually get very frustrated with my patients about is their common sense of victimhood. About 90% of my patients feel that their life sucks because of everyone else’s choices, not about their own. Perhaps I don’t always go about it the right way here online, but it’s a trait of yours that also aggravates me. You seem to miss the fact that you bring a lot of this misery upon yourself. You are obviously a really nice guy, but just like too much of anything, your niceties often get you into conflict with others.

Let me point out a few things about myself. 1) I hardly ever post anymore. Though I’ve increased in the past few months, it’s not nearly what it used to be. Though I read this forum daily, I often go days without posting. That said, 2) I usually come out of hiding to post something only when I feel it’s important. So why do I post criticisms of Jetrell Fo, then? Is it really that important? 3) Yes, I feel it is because there are four traits you exhibit that annoy me: a feeling that there is a conspiracy to elevate TV’s Frink here that even involves the moderators; you misperceive other people’s motives with incredible frequency; you feel the need to correct everyone else’s behavior issues, which are usually minor and automoderated by the forum culture, while failing to conform to said culture yourself; you are so defensive that you refuse to actually self-reflect (in spite of your thread) on what you could be doing that is getting others irritated with you. Your first day back, people were already getting annoyed with you. 4) While you show these traits often, sometimes it’s with great moderation, but other times it is with such vigor that I cannot help but try to make apparent to you what you are doing that is causing such trouble, usually with a little humor.

Let me give examples of the above grievances I have towards your behavior.

Frink Worship and Mod Collusion

How often have you said, “Oh, I see that Frink runs the forum and the moderators aren’t doing anything about. Everyone worships him. Wo is me!”? Guess what? Off Topic was unmoderated for several years, and it was fine. Sure, we got in arguments. I can name everyone that caused my blood pressure to rise: Darth Id, imperialscum, Lord Haseo, DominicCobb, walkingdork, CP3S, TheBoost, Bingowings…and TV’s Frink! Yet, I don’t hold a grudge against any of them, we’ve usually worked out our differences in an amicable manner, and all was well. However, you came along, and you became so insistent that things were not going the way you saw fit, and now Off Topic is (sort of) moderated. If the mods feel that the situation can right itself, I think they trust it to do so, and only you have proven that such is not the case. They are not indulging Frink. They just don’t care enough to intervene, and hope that the people here can actually act like adults.

Misperceived Motives

How often have you targeted Warbler for something you don’t approve of? Warbler is a great guy. I hope he won’t mind me saying this, but he’s also a bit of a different guy. His thinking is very concrete at times. He is very black and white. This sometimes reflects in his political views. He also can be very sensitive about certain topics and really blow up. I have been here long enough and read through enough old threads to know that he has also been the victim of a great deal of bullying. Have you not noticed how often Darth Id mocks him? I think I can say with great certainty that when he posts something like, “Cut that out or I’ll report you,” he is not baiting. Such is not his style. He is not a man of subtlety. He is direct and means what he says. But you have to create drama, implying that a conspiracy is afoot, and even create a whole new thread that basically was targeting Warbler. Now I know how often you rush to the defense of those you see as being bullied, so forgive me for defending my friend when I see you creating a stupid thread that specifically calls him out for something I know he is not doing. This is one of many examples where you think somebody is doing something sneaky. Another example might be the belief in multiple socks in existence. You see motivation, sneakiness, and scheming where there is none.

Backseat Moderating/Correcting Others’ Behaviors

It seems that you cannot help but try to get involved in everyone’s disputes. You try to be a peacemaker, but sometimes it’s just better to let others hammer out their own problems. See the above example involving Warbler, generalfrevious, and Alderaan. Just learn when to keep a lid on it, and trust other adults and the moderators to make the situation right. Sometimes my oldest two kids (twins) love to correct, often with great rudeness, the behavior of the younger two kids. I tell them all the time that the younger two already have parents and don’t need any extras. Is it not the same principle here? We have grownups who can usually act like they’re all grown up, and when they can’t, the mods help out. But somehow, you have to be that “extra parent”. Back off.

Over-defensiveness

Finally, while you’ve admitted some faults on here, they’re usually silly and self-deprecating and wrong. However, when anyone points out legitimately what is causing friction on your part, you fail to acknowledge that maybe they’re right, that maybe a character flaw is coming into play, that maybe you could change something about yourself instead of trying to change others, and that maybe you’d get along better. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if I don’t need to provide any more example here. I think your reply just might be the example I need.

Look, Off Topic will always be a little chaotic. That’s the way most people here like it. It’s a culture that has developed on this site. You are not going to single-handedly change that. If you don’t like it, find another place to discuss topics of passion. I am conservative, remember; I don’t even like reading the politics thread anymore. I hate Trump, yes, but I get pretty annoyed at some of the stupid generalizations of conservatism or religion that I read in that thread. So I usually don’t say anything. There was a time just a few years ago when most of the frequenters were conservatives, and we ran the thread. Now it’s run by liberals. So since I don’t post much anymore and don’t want to get caught up in a heated argument, especially since I know I’m drastically outnumbered these days, I stay away. If you don’t like the overwhelming disagreement, stay away from the thread. If you don’t like the nature of Off Topic, stay away from this part of the forum. If you don’t like the culture of originaltrilogy.com, go to another forum. Don’t keep coming back for punishment and repeating the same errors over and over that I have previously mentioned.

Let me say this last parting bit. I actually do like you and think you’re probably a really great guy in real life. And I will even say that TV’s Frink’s politics and humor have gotten on my nerves many, many times. We’ve fought pretty viciously in the past. But I also think that he’s a good guy, just a different guy than me. I don’t think he ever wants to hurt anyone. I think he just tries to use humor to point out people’s foibles, a trait you don’t much care for. Just because both of you annoy me sometimes doesn’t mean either of you are bad people. I choose to like you both, and I try to put up with those traits that can be irritating. Stay you, keep being kind to everyone, and just tone it down on a few things, and I won’t criticize you anymore.

Post of the Year.

I personally don’t see the need to do such a big shuffle music-wise with the “Kylo Ren Arrives at the Battle” track when I feel like it’d probably be easier and smoother to just put something else over Finn seeing the star destroyer and then leave the rest in place, but I guess maybe I’m nitpicking if it doesn’t bother anyone else.

I don’t even know why I keep engaging in this, but here goes.

Mithrandir said:

DominicCobb said:

Mithrandir said:
So, the story can’t be wrong just because it doensn’t match up to our expectations. That’d be close-minded.

I very clearly did not say that. To reiterate, just because it doesn’t match expectations doesn’t make it wrong.

Just because it’s not what you or I might have expected after ROTJ doesn’t mean it’s a definitively wrong way to do it (…) it’s pretty close minded to outright dismiss the story they’re telling just because it wasn’t what you expected

I don’t know how you can’t wrap your head around the word “definitively.” Is this easier to get?: just because it doesn’t match expectations doesn’t make it automatically wrong though it still could be.

DominicCobb said:

Mithrandir said:
And the designs apparently are a minor things as well.

YUP.

Interestingly, we’ve crossed our points of view in this regard. Debate over TFA has been going on recurrently in the forum for over a year and a half under the rehash/not rehash label. Curiously not rehash team has, recurrently as well, claimed that despite the similarities in the general outline of the story and plot it is the details what prevent TFA from being a rehash of ANH. Amongst those details, the designs (of characters, of factions, of wardrobe, of props, of backgrounds, of ships, etc.) certainly are not a minor thing.

You’re lumping way too much into the word “details.” Not to say it’s a bad descriptor of any one of these things but they clearly are not all on the same playing field. Props/wardrobe obviously are not of the same importance as something like character and theme.

Details, and in this case particularly the visual language, are meant to characterize and utterly singularize a general structure, a story. From that point of view, they are relevant.

From other point of view, and since without that structure that sets an order (and the “order” of TFA is what is meant to be dangerously close to ANH according to the rehash team; only to say then that even the details are too close to OT) the details are meaningless, they are not relevant.

In the end it’s not a spectrum where you could say I’m more like here, more like there. It’s a contradiction with no singular resolution. And it’s a contradiction that depending on the scale of the analysis, ends up movilizing the approach always into something both new and old.

Not even a perfect copy of La Gioconda is La Gioconda even though they could be objectively identical. While the copy is something new, sill it never ceases to be a copy.

Why is this important? Because when you apparently take your position militantly in one part of the question, as if it was a spectrum, for instance:

You clearly have a very different way of looking at films than I do. (…) I will say that in my mind it’s all about the story, and what feeds into it and how.

Down that road you end up denying the formal, “accesory” details of the work. And further down that road, had your sentence be taken as a general law, it arises some questions such as

If a movie is all about the story and what feeds into it and how; in the end if a movie is about the plot (what happens) or the script (how does it happen) then what does make cinema something else than just filmed theatre in the first place? Or furthermore, what does make theatre something else than just outloud-read literature?

I think that when it comes to art, the platonic hierarchy between substance and detail, what’s essential and what’s irrelevant has to be constantly put in jeopardy, because there is no such thing as a clear and defined line.

You’re either simplifying what I’m saying or not understanding it, can’t decide which.

I’m not saying you can’t critique a design of a starship or whatever. Obviously any sort of hierarchy is subjective, as is any sort of criticism of art. I don’t think I’ve ever said the word irrelevant in regards to this. Maybe if I’m talking about something really small I could say that it is essentially irrelevant to the ultimate quality of the film (not completely). Everything has a relevance to a degree. But there are degrees. And obviously it’s something that changes with each film. I’m not going to go around talking about dialogue in All Is Lost, to give an extreme example of what I mean. For some (rare) movies, designs might be very relevant to the overall quality of the film. But, yes, designs in TFA are minor. That doesn’t mean you can’t dislike them or criticize them or think they make the movie bad, but, from my point of view, they are a minor aspect.

It’s all about, like I said, feeding into the story. First of all, story is more than plot. Second of all,
“how” is more than the script. “What feeds into it” are exactly the “accessory details” you think I’m completely neglecting.

I think we can agree that the original Star Wars is a masterwork because it’s more than just it’s plot (which is fairly simple), it’s true cinema. A great story, well told. Now, to get down deep in it and back to the topic at hand, let’s take a piece of design: the Millennium Falcon. The Falcon is a great bit of design because its atypical shape and beat up exterior perfectly fit the Solo character and the scrappy mission. So of course the design of the Falcon improves Star Wars to some degree, as it feeds into the story. But my ultimate point is that degree isn’t enough that, if the design weren’t as fitting, the film would be that much less of a great film. It wouldn’t be as perfect, but that’d still only be a minor thing in the context of everything else.

To loop it all back this thread, do we know TLJ’s story yet? Fuck no. So how can we know if walkers are fitting yet? How can we even know if the political situation is fitting yet? These are not unimportant aspects of the film but they are aspects that feed into the larger whole, not simply aspects unto themselves. Before we see them in context in the larger whole, there is no way of knowing if they are a successfully fit into the story being told, and there is no way of knowing the true quality of that larger whole without knowing the quality of the story and how it’s told.

In the end, it’s basically that old sentiment “never trust a trailer.” You can have a good trailer for a bad movie or vice versa. Of course there are things that could show up as warning signs that could imply larger issues in the general approach that the film is taking. Which is fair. But the truth is you can’t really know if that approach is a wrong one until you’ve seen the full context.

Let me use, as an example, oh let’s see, hmm, how about The Last Jedi? Because this film already has a teaser. And frankly, I was kind of put off by it. Because I’m not used to SW films picking up where the last one left off. I like the flexibility and intrigue a time gap creates. But you know what? I’m willing to give Johnson the benefit of the doubt. First, because I know he is a competent filmmaker so I trust he has a good reason for starting the film where he is. And second, because I don’t know the reason. If Johnson makes the film’s starting point worthwhile to the story? Great. If Johnson makes the political situation worthwhile to the story? Great. That’s what matters to me, and I can only know on December 14, not before.

Do you see what I’m saying? I do hope I’m communicating my point clearly because if I’m going to be a crazy person and spend time doing this I want you to understand what I’m saying (because so far you haven’t). And I mean that honestly, not in a jerky way.

We don’t deserve these videos, but we need them: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlLOd9IiBWLE3pl_dxB3hASeSOvguJE_6

Mithrandir said:

DominicCobb said:

As for little things like stormtrooper armor? I mean really, is this the stuff we should be giving a shit about when it comes to the quality of these movies?

So, the story can’t be wrong just because it doensn’t match up to our expectations. That’d be close-minded.

I very clearly did not say that. To reiterate, just because it doesn’t match expectations doesn’t make it wrong.

And the designs apparently are a minor things as well.

YUP.

I judge TFA’s color palette to be way to Narnian for a Star Wars movie, somewhat close even to Fellowship of the Ring: ocres, greens, blueish whites. I suppose, answering myself, that is also a thing about which we shouldn’t be giving a shit.

There’s nothing wrong with “giving a shit” about color palette (though you’re going about it in an odd way) or stormtrooper designs. Again you seem to be purposefully misinterpreting my words.

I just wonder what can or is it socially allowed to be fallible in a movie in order to measure its quality. Because, again apparently, due to it being to subjective, or it being to irrelevant, nothing could fail. And that’s just the inconditional fan talking.

You clearly have a very different way of looking at films than I do.

You also have a nice way of arguing. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I will say that in my mind it’s all about the story, and what feeds into it and how.

We’re a little more than half a year away of really knowing what’s the deal with the ST. We have some information, that of course could be wrong or fake, but when TLJ is out there will be no room for saying that we still don’t know when 2/3 of the movie is already out.

I’m sure we’ll find out come TLJ but that’s not really the point. I’m not going to render a judgement on the political situation based purely on a simplistic “what it is.” Resistance has the upper hand, First Order has the upper hand, neither, both, whatever. In my mind what doesn’t matter so long as it makes sense and is told well (as I said before, did you catch my post by any chance?).

Jeebus said:

DominicCobb said:

People should remember too that there’s still a lot we don’t know, not just about TLJ but about the whole ST and everything that’s going on at that time. Personally I see the fight against the First Order as more of an even handed match up than Empire vs. Rebels, but you know I could be wrong about that, and that’s okay, as long as it’s handled well. It’s pretty silly to think that there’s no way that the First Order could have such power,

Certainly there’s some way they could’ve gained that much power, I’m just saying that I think it’s lazy storytelling. It’s the same conflict from the OT; a ragtag rebel group vs a big and powerful military dictatorship with a planet-destroying superweapon.

I don’t consider that lazy storytelling. What you described is just the broad strokes. There are so many similar types of stories, told time and time again. What matters is how it’s told.

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

Jeebus said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?

People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.

As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.

So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?

I think “war criminal” is a bit hyperbole. It was a vote to use force against terrorists days after 9/11.

There are lots of opinions on that matter, but I’m using the Nuremburg standard. The AUMF was a blank check to someone who’d already made it very clear he planned to attack the Iraqis on any dreamed up pretext. If Bush had been a little more guarded about his plans, or if there was ever any credible link between Iraq and Sept 11, there’d be more room for argument. As it was, Hillary knew the Iraqis posed no threat, and she knew she was authorizing an attack on them. The only thing she didn’t know is that we weren’t just planning to attack, we were planning to occupy–and that there would be political fallout because of that. Had she known that, she may have calculated differently.

She was fortunate that Trump was also in the “I supported the invasion until it started losing popularity” club, or he may have gotten more votes than her.

Oh you mean the Iraq Resolution? Well that’s a bit different, though we still should remember people thought they had WMDs at the time.

Just because it’s not what you or I might have expected after ROTJ doesn’t mean it’s a definitively wrong way to do it. As long as it makes sense in the story, and the story is well told, I don’t see any reason to be upset by it.

People should remember too that there’s still a lot we don’t know, not just about TLJ but about the whole ST and everything that’s going on at that time. Personally I see the fight against the First Order as more of an even handed match up than Empire vs. Rebels, but you know I could be wrong about that, and that’s okay, as long as it’s handled well. It’s pretty silly to think that there’s no way that the First Order could have such power, and yeah you can think that maybe that’s not the way they should have done it, but it’s pretty close minded to outright dismiss the story they’re telling just because it wasn’t what you expected. I bet a lot of people here didn’t think the Rebels stealing the Death Star plans was actually a massive land and space battle, but you don’t see a lot of people complaining about that.

As for little things like stormtrooper armor? I mean really, is this the stuff we should be giving a shit about when it comes to the quality of these movies?

Jeebus said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?

People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.

As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.

So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?

I think “war criminal” is a bit hyperbole. It was a vote to use force against terrorists days after 9/11. I think people were pretty much unanimous in agreeing that needed to happen (at the time, at least). The conduct with which the force was used could certainly constitute a “war crime” but the vote? That’s a bit much.

He went to Jared.

Also, reddit is the worst
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dissecting-trumps-most-rabid-online-following/

NeverarGreat said:

DominicCobb said:

Trump is such a charged situation. For so many people he represents the epitome of everything wrong in the country, and not in the usual “we have a different ideology” way, but in a plainly moral way. And that’s because the guy is living, breathing scum, an example of a bigoted rich old white guy so perfect as to be a parody of itself. The truth is, the bigotry is right there for anyone looking. And for many that makes him completely unredeemable. And for others it doesn’t change a thing for them (and then of course there’s those who like it). Now obviously you have a right not to mind the man’s bigotry. But for many people they just cannot understand how anyone could brush that aside, especially when that bigotry and ignorance can directly affect them. I’m certainly one to preach tolerance, so I understand Trump supporters who overlooked the troubling aspects. But I also sympathize with those who could not. To dismiss those who are so passionately against him is just as bad to dismiss those who are rationally for him. Both have a perspective and a reason for what many on either side may consider to be their extreme opinions.

I would agree with this, except for classifying Trump as scum. I don’t think it’s helpful to vilify anyone, even terrible people like Hitler, since even villains think that they are basically good people.

I don’t think anyone views Trump as a particularly moral person. The fact that the Left constantly harps on this aspect misses the point that people voted for Trump despite his moral failings, and to some extent, because of them. Not because these people are racist, but because they saw in Trump someone who didn’t apologize, who said what he wanted. This is the exact opposite of the value-signaling that the Left engages in, and in the view of the Right, it weakens us all.

The fact that Trump can say things not based in fact and get away with it is far more powerful and important than if he were to say measured, reasonable things like Obama. The Left has claimed for decades that the Right is living in a world divorced from factual, scientific reality, and so people on the Right may often feel threatened when they attempt to profess their religious/economic/political beliefs. For them, our PC, scientifically minded culture is not liberating, it is oppressive. The Left has the academic and scientific resources to amass a great deal of evidence in favor of their beliefs, and the Right has mostly been relegated to talk radio and extreme Libertarian theory. How could there be a vigorous discourse in our society when the odds are so uneven? I do not mean to imply that the beliefs of the left are better than those of the Right, just that the Left tends toward academia.

To bring it back to Trump, his wanton disregard for facts has quickly leveled the playing field of discourse in this country, much like the A-bomb leveled Hiroshima. This is partly the fault of the Left for not recognizing that they were ever more communicating with themselves and leaving half of the country out, and partly the fault of the Right for insulating themselves in their own bubble. Communication is hard, and it’s far easier to retreat to echo chambers. I hope that we as a nation begin to recognize that we need to build a broad knowledge of facts instead of calling everything fake news, and recognizing that Trump’s solution is ultimately destructive. Merriam Webster says it best, when describing the word ‘trumpery’: worthless nonsense.

I agree that Trump’s separation from the truth/reality is essentially the biggest issue with him (and the one that basically causes all his others). My point with discussing his bigotry and relative scumminess is in explaining why those who oppose him (and specifically his supporters) do so so vigorously. You’re absolutely right about the nature of discourse is so damaged because now facts are up for question, but I do believe, when it comes to people shaming Trump supporters (as darthrush mentioned), it’s mainly because of the bigotry.

I don’t think shaming is the right way to handle it but my point was basically that if you’re going to sympathize with those being shamed and look at it from their perspective, you should also sympathize with those shaming by looking at it from their perspective, too.

suspiciouscoffee said:

I brought it up in the compliment something thread and DomCobb wondered why more people weren’t talking about it, so I suggest a Samurai Jack thread.

Rush, there comes a moment in life where you start to become more aware of the larger societal and systemic conflicts of the world, and how often they affect others (and perhaps not yourself). When faced with this kind of info, people can go too far in either direction - speaking out or shrugging it off. This is natural if unfortunate for nuanced discussion. The key is though to realize nuanced discussion on certain topics does exist if you’re willing to look hard and challenge your own views, whatever they may be.

The problem that you probably don’t realize is that terms like SJW and PC are used to generalize and discredit. Those who make sweeping allegations that these type of people refuse to have reasonable debates are no better themselves. The truth is that yes, a lot of people take things too far (especially on the internet), but you can’t discount a whole ideology just because the word “racism” is brought up, for instance. More often than not, these people have a very well thought out argument as to why such and such is problematic and it’s a lot more than just “waaah he’s a bigot meanie.” To lump everyone into a dismissive categorization like SJW is to essentially say that anyone who thinks things like racism and sexism are still a problem are ridiculous, which is of course as ridiculous a statement as anything else.

At the end of the day, in my mind, which is worse? Someone being cautious about a potentially offensive thing even if overly so? Or someone being actually offensive?

Trump is such a charged situation. For so many people he represents the epitome of everything wrong in the country, and not in the usual “we have a different ideology” way, but in a plainly moral way. And that’s because the guy is living, breathing scum, an example of a bigoted rich old white guy so perfect as to be a parody of itself. The truth is, the bigotry is right there for anyone looking. And for many that makes him completely unredeemable. And for others it doesn’t change a thing for them (and then of course there’s those who like it). Now obviously you have a right not to mind the man’s bigotry. But for many people they just cannot understand how anyone could brush that aside, especially when that bigotry and ignorance can directly affect them. I’m certainly one to preach tolerance, so I understand Trump supporters who overlooked the troubling aspects. But I also sympathize with those who could not. To dismiss those who are so passionately against him is just as bad to dismiss those who are rationally for him. Both have a perspective and a reason for what many on either side may consider to be their extreme opinions.

Now I haven’t watched those videos but just from what you quoted I’m worried about the rhetoric. Mentioning “violent protests” is a clear bit of false framing to villainize these people on the left, because the truth is most protesting is not violent at all, as has been abundantly obvious in this country in the last few months.

Bottom line is understanding the complexity of perspectives and opinions of people in the modern world. It’s tough when you’re in high school and people are just starting to tap into a feeling and don’t know the most rational way to express it yet. But the worst thing you can do is to dismiss someone’s perspective outright on either side of the aisle, just because it doesn’t conform to what you already believe is true about the world.