Jay

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

While there’s more to quality of life than just environmental threats and humans are still better off today than at any other point in history,

Do we have to make this pointless statement every single time we criticize Trump?

Do we need to pointlessly mention how terrible things are the world over every single time we criticize Trump?

P.S. - Things aren’t terrible.

I agree climate change is probably the most pressing issue for us as a species and it’s unfortunate that bad politics could end up wrecking the planet.

Unfortunate? It’s not just politicians. It’s primarily to blame on a willfully ignorant population that votes for people like Trump. Even Hillary, although she would’ve been better, was still incredibly weak on environmentalism. There’s also a lot of corporate propaganda in conservative-leaning media that spread outright lies about climate change. I’ve noticed lately that they’re back to spreading the lie that climate change is a total myth. I think it should be illegal to publish fraudulent studies about climate change, kind of like how it’s illegal for tobacco companies to publish fraudulent studies that cigarettes won’t destroy your lungs.

Most voters don’t vote based on a single issue and are primarily concerned with immediate results over future consequences, and I think the economy, immigration, and anti-PC culture took precedence over climate change in the last election for Trump voters (at least some of whom were Obama voters previously). I think most voters besides coal miners hoping to get their jobs back would support a pro-environment policy if it were attached to better economic and immigration policies. I know a few Trump voters and I wouldn’t call them willfully ignorant by any stretch. They’d vote for the right Democrat.

Democrats lost because they had a mediocre platform and the wrong candidate. They need to come out with a rock star in 2020, but with the party going hard left on immigration and pretending that most Americans don’t want secure borders, they’re setting themselves up for another loss.

moviefreakedmind said:

https://secondnexus.com/environment/trump-signs-executive-order-reversing-ocean-protections/

More proof that the world is not in anything resembling decent shape.

Basing policy on executive orders under the assumption that your platform is so strong it will carry your chosen successor into office to continue your work means you’re subject to an unanticipated successor undoing all your work. Obama is learning this now and Trump will learn it if his successor is a Democrat.

While there’s more to quality of life than just environmental threats and humans are still better off today than at any other point in history, I agree climate change is probably the most pressing issue for us as a species and it’s unfortunate that bad politics could end up wrecking the planet.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:
“You’re quite obviously wrong, and I can’t be bothered to explain why.”

I feel the need to point out that you have done exactly this to me.

I don’t remember the exact post(s), but I’m guessing you and I had to go in circles before I ended up in that place; it probably wasn’t for lack of trying, and I probably only went there out of frustration. Frink defaults to that point of view. Not the same thing.

No, you repeatedly ignored almost everything I said about Jordan Peterson and then refused to acknowledge my actual arguments, only singling out specific sentences out of context and acting as though my entire posts were unreasonable based on that and then said you were no longer willing to address anything I said. So, you’re right, it’s not the same thing. You also employed some great ad-hominem attacks about how I’m irrational and don’t have a grasp on reality because I’m delusional and some other irrelevant bullshit that had nothing to do with what I was arguing. If you’re going to that, I’m all for it. I have no problem with such tactics, and I even employ them myself from time to time, but let’s at least admit that it happens. That’s all I ask.

We didn’t agree on JP because we have a fundamental disagreement on what he’s saying. I don’t think you’re representing his words accurately (not saying you’re being dishonest, we just have a very different take on his opinions), and if we can’t agree on what he meant as a baseline, there’s no point in furthering the discussion.

I found your previous post mostly reasonable except for the whole “the world is in the shitter” thing. I’m guessing we could pick any year on the calendar and had you been alive at that time, you would’ve been saying the world is in terrible shape. A negative outlook on life tends to do that.

If you read my post then you’d have seen that I acknowledged that. I just don’t like the method of stifling criticism of the world by bringing up that other times have been bad too. I don’t see how that’s helpful or even relevant. I’m also curious about what you disagree with me on aside from that since the rest of my what you call “mostly reasonable” post was dedicated to debunking the black Republican movement that you say is supposedly happening where black people are somehow coming to the baffling realization that the Democratic has made their lives worse over the last 60 years.

This is another area where we have problems establishing a baseline. I don’t see how any rational argument can be made that criticism of the world is being stifled at this point in time. Practically everything being thrown at us is bad news. Introducing the idea that things have been way worse in the past isn’t an attempt to rewrite the present; it’s an attempt to establish a baseline that many people have lost sight of.

Your words:

Uh, everything is awful and the world is pretty much in the toilet.

That’s patently absurd. Where do we go from there?

I don’t think the world is at its worst. I think the worst of the world is on the news and social media 24 hours a day, everything has become politicized, and it’s eating away at people’s sense of well-being. I decided not to be a victim of that mentality any longer. The truth, despite all the imperfect things about this world, is that this is probably the best time to be alive in human history.

Are you going to address anything that I actually said about why the world is a disaster overall? Regardless of whether it’s the best time to be alive, which I agree that it is, the world is still largely in very poor hands.

I’ve heard this argument from both sides of the fence after every election. We’re all still here somehow.

I’m not trying to insult you. It’s just difficult to fashion an argument against an overwhelmingly negative worldview that I fundamentally disagree with. I get the impression you aren’t going to budge on the idea that “the world is pretty much in the toilet”. Am I wrong?

oojason said:

Jay said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

TV’s Frink said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

Well, I disagree entirely. First off, it is obvious we are supposed to side with Poe. Holdo is expecting Poe to follow orders. That he doesn’t is not surprising because she doesn’t share what she is doing. And ultimately it is Poe who turns Holdo’s cunning plan into a disaster. Poe sends Finn and Rose off to solve the problem his way. A daring venture full of risks with a possible payoff. But because they do not find the hacker that Maz recommends (probably because he can be trusted) and they end up with DJ and DJ learns of Holdo’s plan, when the mission goes sour he uses that to get himself out of trouble. As a result most of the resistance is destroyed, rather than losing the one ship and hiding out on Crait until someone came to get them. Poe is a hotshot pilot but that is not what makes a leader. Knowing when to not be the hotshot and play it safe is the lesson he needed and he got it the hard way. However the movie makes it very clear that if he hadn’t gone ahead and destroyed the dreadnaught at the beginning, it would have wiped them out later. So his first reckless act that he got demoted for turned out to be the right thing to do at the time, but after the fallout, Poe is making wiser decisions. Not bad for a character Abrams almost killed off.

That story line is full of old war movie tropes. How Holdo treats Poe, how Poe reacts, and how he learns. That may not be your real world experience, but it is many people’s. And Holdo doesn’t seem like she is much of a people person. One of those who rose to command through brilliant tactics. She obviously is a friend of Leia’s. So her tough treatment of Poe makes a lot of sense. Military methods of leadership are not the same as private sector methods. The military needs people who will follow orders without question plus brilliant strategists. So using civilian leadership techniques to critique a military interaction doesn’t work well. The same rules don’t apply. There is a reason why the traditional drill sergeant is tough and gruff. Dressing down a subordinate in a military setting isn’t about their well being, it is about their discipline and willingness to follow orders. In a military setting you need someone who will not panic and will act on their training no matter the price. In a civilian setting an employee’s life is rarely on the line and you rarely need blind obedience. So it is comparing apples to oranges.

So both on the writing side and on the realism side, this part of the story reflects some brilliant writing. I find the entire movie to be brilliant. I love it more the more I watch it. And it is definitely very Star Wars. War movies and samurai movies were very much a part of the original trilogy and Rian Johnson captured that part far better than Abrams did in TFA. I watched Twelve O’Clock High and Three Outlaw Samurai after I heard they, plus To Catch A Thief, were classics Rian Johnson was watching to prepare for this movie. Three brilliant films that definitely had an influence.

Maybe you should read the link I posted from someone with actual military experience

Still leaning on this I see.

C’mon Frink, no-one in the military has ever got it wrong! We should read everything anyone who has fought says - or else we may not think as Dre wishes, as our lives may depend on it some day, otherwise an ER tv doctor will not save us - or something…

All for a link to article about Holdo not being a feminist (going on the url) - according to someone with actual military experience - who is giving their opinion - not fact - opinion.

My uncle has military experience - served in Northern Ireland. I wouldn’t listen to his opinion on Star Wars - he doesn’t like it. That’s okay. If he wrote an article on SW - or feminism - I wouldn’t read it. Still love him to bits like. If he does write an articles on Star Wars feel free not to read it - or read it, if you want - your call.

C’mon Jason, you wouldn’t know, because you didn’t read the guy’s opinion. Could he be wrong? Sure, but it’s less likely than let’s say the opinion of a mod on a Star Wars forum. If you can present another opinion, that’s actually based on relevant experience or expertise, rather than being a fan of a movie, that refutes this guy’s argument, I will gladly read it. He can even call me a man baby, since expertise and personality are generally not correlated (for example, I would gladly be operated by a brilliant churgin, who’s also an *******). However, until that day comes, I choose to trust a veteran’s opinion over a Star Wars fan when it comes to military situations.

My uncle’s opinion? Not interested - it’s not an ‘expert opinion’ in the context of is Holdo a feminist or not, and comparing real life military to a sci-fi film. I think I’ve already said that - though you seem to ignore many points and questions I’ve previously made/asked on the subject. Please feel free to read them back again - or seemingly not.

My opinion on Holdo being a feminist or not has less value because of someone who fought? Okay…

To be honest - you shouldn’t listen to my opinion - mod or not (What on earth? It doesn’t mean a thing - and am quite surprised you allude it does) - go form your own opinions. You’re free to do that - some have fought for that, so we can make up own own minds and then state them.

I don’t have to refute a man’s opinion or article, nor do I have to read every link put in front of me. Yet I can still state my opinion - and I will do. You want to give it a measure of value? Okay.

You seem very hung up on the feminist angle. Even if that were relevant to judgement of the whole military situation, you don’t know the context of the word, since you didn’t read the article.

Hung up on the feminist angle? No, it is in the url link to the article we are discussing though, isn’t it? A military veteran’s ‘expert opinion’ on Holdo not being a feminist… I’ve stated that a few times - pretty consistent, yes?

You are also not being very consistent. You claim real life military experience is not relevant to a sci-fi film, yet you were happy to link to an article a while ago, where another “expert” believed Holdo’s lightspeed kamikaze was physically possible. Apparently expert opinions are only relevant if they support your narrative.

Nah mate, I post articles for info and that they may be of interest to some - whether people actually read them, believe them, dismiss them, or ignore them is completely up to them. I also don’t repeatedly post about why people should read them - or claim they contain ‘expert opinions’ - so they should.

LOL, I just added a line in my previous post, where I predicted just this answer. You didn’t post it for your own benefit, but for others. I suppose, it just happened to support your narrative accidentally. Nice one!

Yes, it’s the article where you claimed you didn’t judge a book by it’s cover. Yet, you continue to hammer on the title phrase “not a feminist” like it’s some sort of mantra.

What’s kind of ridiculous about not reading the article is that it doesn’t bash feminism in any way. It takes apart both the idea that Holdo should be held up as some feminist ideal (discrediting those who’d promote her as such) and that she’s some attempt by Lucasfilm to promote feminism (discrediting the “toxic fans”). The author points out her flaws in a fairly well-reasoned manner.

People get all tweaked over certain words and deliberately keep themselves ignorant to what benefit? I don’t get it.

Jay, I don’t care if the article bashes feminism (or praises it, or is somewhere in between) - as you’ll see from my first two replies to Dre on the subject…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

Allways good to hear from someone who knows what he’s talking about. A military veteran gives a real world account of leadership, and why Holdo did not display good leadership while in command:

https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2017/12/31/admiral-holdo-wasnt-a-feminist-she-was-just-a-bad-leader/

I haven’t read the link - though think Holdo demonstrated good leadership in sacrificing herself to save the remaining Rebels in those unarmed ships being easily picked off by the First Order.

I don’t really need to read the views of a military veteran to understand or appreciate this - nor do I care for a military veteran’s reasons as to why she wasn’t a feminist (going on the url link) - or indeed why some think being a feminist matters in this context - but am sure it will come in handy for those that do. Nice one.

&

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

Allways good to hear from someone who knows what he’s talking about. A military veteran gives a real world account of leadership, and why Holdo did not display good leadership while in command:

https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2017/12/31/admiral-holdo-wasnt-a-feminist-she-was-just-a-bad-leader/

I haven’t read the link - though think Holdo demonstrated good leadership in sacrificing herself to save the remaining Rebels in those unarmed ships being easily picked off by the First Order.

I don’t really need to read the views of a military veteran to understand or appreciate this - nor do I care for a military veteran’s reasons as to why she wasn’t a feminist (going on the url link) - or indeed why some think being a feminist matters in this context - but am sure it will come in handy for those that do. Nice one.

You shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, seems an apt statement here.

I believe we should read something first before commenting on it, but anyways in response to your belief that she displayed good leadership, and the fact that you seem to believe uninformed opinion trumps actual combat and leadership experience relating to a combat situation, here goes:

Mate, it’s not a case of judging a book by it’s cover - it’s a case of no longer still being interested in the topic at hand (which to me has been done to death - and then repeated some more, and then dug up again too) - and also not being interested in the views linked in that article you posted upon reading it’s url link.

So hardly an uninformed opinion on this subject, no?

If this combat veteran believes it was poor leadership cool - I don’t. I also don’t read up other articles from combat veterans when they are unhappy with events from other films that I have no issue with either. Nor those that wish to discuss why someone wasn’t a feminist (going on the url link). Well in to those that do, if that’s their thing, though.

I don’t have the time or energy to read through every link on here - and am certainly not going to spend time on this subject which frankly… doesn’t interest me, and I don’t have a problem with.

My previous post stands as it is - and as I said in that post… fair play that your link may interest others. Nice one.

nor do I think I’m deliberately keeping myself ignorant on the subject of feminism by not reading the ‘expert opinion’ of a combat veteran’s article on it. There are more than enough quality articles from varying angles and opinions out there - by people whose positions/experiences/situations who do interest or intrigue me. I’ve read a few over the years, and will likely be reading more in the future too. More on Admiral Holdo? Very likely not - I’ve read too much crap about her already - and it’s only been 7 a bit months since TLJ - it seems like years, it actually seems I’ve read more on Holdo in that time that I ever have about Leia.

Fatigue is a kicker, yet please don’t mistake it for ignorance.

If the url link is a misnomer or doesn’t accurately reflect the article then the author should consider changing it - though maybe that affects the SEO and amount of hits he’ll get with certain ‘buzzwords’ removed?

The article isn’t about feminism and the title isn’t a misnomer. Reading the article makes the point that Holdo’s “strong” leadership decisions aren’t about her being a feminist role model, which is how some of the media portray her character. They’re just bad decisions regardless of gender or politics.

I wasn’t targeting you specifically with my comments. I agree with DrDre’s general observations though that there’s an attitude of “I don’t have to acknowledge your ideas because I’ve already made up my mind” going around, yet there are still plenty of opinions on offer. Maybe he mistook your comments for that, and if that’s not the case, no big deal. If you don’t want to read an article supporting a different viewpoint, no problem.

Generally speaking, I don’t see the purpose of posts from people saying they’re tired of the debate, they don’t want to participate, they’re leaving the thread, etc., only to show up again and again. When I’m tired, I don’t stay up for another hour or two talking about going to sleep. I go to sleep.

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

TV’s Frink said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

Well, I disagree entirely. First off, it is obvious we are supposed to side with Poe. Holdo is expecting Poe to follow orders. That he doesn’t is not surprising because she doesn’t share what she is doing. And ultimately it is Poe who turns Holdo’s cunning plan into a disaster. Poe sends Finn and Rose off to solve the problem his way. A daring venture full of risks with a possible payoff. But because they do not find the hacker that Maz recommends (probably because he can be trusted) and they end up with DJ and DJ learns of Holdo’s plan, when the mission goes sour he uses that to get himself out of trouble. As a result most of the resistance is destroyed, rather than losing the one ship and hiding out on Crait until someone came to get them. Poe is a hotshot pilot but that is not what makes a leader. Knowing when to not be the hotshot and play it safe is the lesson he needed and he got it the hard way. However the movie makes it very clear that if he hadn’t gone ahead and destroyed the dreadnaught at the beginning, it would have wiped them out later. So his first reckless act that he got demoted for turned out to be the right thing to do at the time, but after the fallout, Poe is making wiser decisions. Not bad for a character Abrams almost killed off.

That story line is full of old war movie tropes. How Holdo treats Poe, how Poe reacts, and how he learns. That may not be your real world experience, but it is many people’s. And Holdo doesn’t seem like she is much of a people person. One of those who rose to command through brilliant tactics. She obviously is a friend of Leia’s. So her tough treatment of Poe makes a lot of sense. Military methods of leadership are not the same as private sector methods. The military needs people who will follow orders without question plus brilliant strategists. So using civilian leadership techniques to critique a military interaction doesn’t work well. The same rules don’t apply. There is a reason why the traditional drill sergeant is tough and gruff. Dressing down a subordinate in a military setting isn’t about their well being, it is about their discipline and willingness to follow orders. In a military setting you need someone who will not panic and will act on their training no matter the price. In a civilian setting an employee’s life is rarely on the line and you rarely need blind obedience. So it is comparing apples to oranges.

So both on the writing side and on the realism side, this part of the story reflects some brilliant writing. I find the entire movie to be brilliant. I love it more the more I watch it. And it is definitely very Star Wars. War movies and samurai movies were very much a part of the original trilogy and Rian Johnson captured that part far better than Abrams did in TFA. I watched Twelve O’Clock High and Three Outlaw Samurai after I heard they, plus To Catch A Thief, were classics Rian Johnson was watching to prepare for this movie. Three brilliant films that definitely had an influence.

Maybe you should read the link I posted from someone with actual military experience

Still leaning on this I see.

C’mon Frink, no-one in the military has ever got it wrong! We should read everything anyone who has fought says - or else we may not think as Dre wishes, as our lives may depend on it some day, otherwise an ER tv doctor will not save us - or something…

All for a link to article about Holdo not being a feminist (going on the url) - according to someone with actual military experience - who is giving their opinion - not fact - opinion.

My uncle has military experience - served in Northern Ireland. I wouldn’t listen to his opinion on Star Wars - he doesn’t like it. That’s okay. If he wrote an article on SW - or feminism - I wouldn’t read it. Still love him to bits like. If he does write an articles on Star Wars feel free not to read it - or read it, if you want - your call.

C’mon Jason, you wouldn’t know, because you didn’t read the guy’s opinion. Could he be wrong? Sure, but it’s less likely than let’s say the opinion of a mod on a Star Wars forum. If you can present another opinion, that’s actually based on relevant experience or expertise, rather than being a fan of a movie, that refutes this guy’s argument, I will gladly read it. He can even call me a man baby, since expertise and personality are generally not correlated (for example, I would gladly be operated by a brilliant churgin, who’s also an *******). However, until that day comes, I choose to trust a veteran’s opinion over a Star Wars fan when it comes to military situations.

My uncle’s opinion? Not interested - it’s not an ‘expert opinion’ in the context of is Holdo a feminist or not, and comparing real life military to a sci-fi film. I think I’ve already said that - though you seem to ignore many points and questions I’ve previously made/asked on the subject. Please feel free to read them back again - or seemingly not.

My opinion on Holdo being a feminist or not has less value because of someone who fought? Okay…

To be honest - you shouldn’t listen to my opinion - mod or not (What on earth? It doesn’t mean a thing - and am quite surprised you allude it does) - go form your own opinions. You’re free to do that - some have fought for that, so we can make up own own minds and then state them.

I don’t have to refute a man’s opinion or article, nor do I have to read every link put in front of me. Yet I can still state my opinion - and I will do. You want to give it a measure of value? Okay.

You seem very hung up on the feminist angle. Even if that were relevant to judgement of the whole military situation, you don’t know the context of the word, since you didn’t read the article.

Hung up on the feminist angle? No, it is in the url link to the article we are discussing though, isn’t it? A military veteran’s ‘expert opinion’ on Holdo not being a feminist… I’ve stated that a few times - pretty consistent, yes?

You are also not being very consistent. You claim real life military experience is not relevant to a sci-fi film, yet you were happy to link to an article a while ago, where another “expert” believed Holdo’s lightspeed kamikaze was physically possible. Apparently expert opinions are only relevant if they support your narrative.

Nah mate, I post articles for info and that they may be of interest to some - whether people actually read them, believe them, dismiss them, or ignore them is completely up to them. I also don’t repeatedly post about why people should read them - or claim they contain ‘expert opinions’ - so they should.

LOL, I just added a line in my previous post, where I predicted just this answer. You didn’t post it for your own benefit, but for others. I suppose, it just happened to support your narrative accidentally. Nice one!

Yes, it’s the article where you claimed you didn’t judge a book by it’s cover. Yet, you continue to hammer on the title phrase “not a feminist” like it’s some sort of mantra.

What’s kind of ridiculous about not reading the article is that it doesn’t bash feminism in any way. It takes apart both the idea that Holdo should be held up as some feminist ideal (discrediting those who’d promote her as such) and that she’s some attempt by Lucasfilm to promote feminism (discrediting the “toxic fans”). The author points out her flaws in a fairly well-reasoned manner.

People get all tweaked over certain words and deliberately keep themselves ignorant to what benefit? I don’t get it.

TV’s Frink said:

Ah, well now that you’ve brought up shit-stirring I see where you’re headed. I suspected it but didn’t bother to bring it up, but there it is. If my time here is short, so be it. I like it a lot less here lately anyway.

Get off your cross.

I’m not surprised you like it less since you’re no longer being allowed to treat the entire forum as your personal playground and overwhelm half the topics with nonsense. As I’ve said to numerous members over the last 15 years, you’re welcome to leave at any time.

dahmage said:

Wow, Jay shows up and tries to push Frink to look like a ban-worth troll (this is my takeaway).

Your takeaway is wrong.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:
“You’re quite obviously wrong, and I can’t be bothered to explain why.”

I feel the need to point out that you have done exactly this to me.

I don’t remember the exact post(s), but I’m guessing you and I had to go in circles before I ended up in that place; it probably wasn’t for lack of trying, and I probably only went there out of frustration. Frink defaults to that point of view. Not the same thing.

I found your previous post mostly reasonable except for the whole “the world is in the shitter” thing. I’m guessing we could pick any year on the calendar and had you been alive at that time, you would’ve been saying the world is in terrible shape. A negative outlook on life tends to do that.

I don’t think the world is at its worst. I think the worst of the world is on the news and social media 24 hours a day, everything has become politicized, and it’s eating away at people’s sense of well-being. I decided not to be a victim of that mentality any longer. The truth, despite all the imperfect things about this world, is that this is probably the best time to be alive in human history.

yotsuya said:

Well, I disagree entirely. First off, it is obvious we are supposed to side with Poe. Holdo is expecting Poe to follow orders. That he doesn’t is not surprising because she doesn’t share what she is doing. And ultimately it is Poe who turns Holdo’s cunning plan into a disaster. Poe sends Finn and Rose off to solve the problem his way. A daring venture full of risks with a possible payoff. But because they do not find the hacker that Maz recommends (probably because he can be trusted) and they end up with DJ and DJ learns of Holdo’s plan, when the mission goes sour he uses that to get himself out of trouble. As a result most of the resistance is destroyed, rather than losing the one ship and hiding out on Crait until someone came to get them. Poe is a hotshot pilot but that is not what makes a leader. Knowing when to not be the hotshot and play it safe is the lesson he needed and he got it the hard way. However the movie makes it very clear that if he hadn’t gone ahead and destroyed the dreadnaught at the beginning, it would have wiped them out later. So his first reckless act that he got demoted for turned out to be the right thing to do at the time, but after the fallout, Poe is making wiser decisions. Not bad for a character Abrams almost killed off.

That story line is full of old war movie tropes. How Holdo treats Poe, how Poe reacts, and how he learns. That may not be your real world experience, but it is many people’s. And Holdo doesn’t seem like she is much of a people person. One of those who rose to command through brilliant tactics. She obviously is a friend of Leia’s. So her tough treatment of Poe makes a lot of sense. Military methods of leadership are not the same as private sector methods. The military needs people who will follow orders without question plus brilliant strategists. So using civilian leadership techniques to critique a military interaction doesn’t work well. The same rules don’t apply. There is a reason why the traditional drill sergeant is tough and gruff. Dressing down a subordinate in a military setting isn’t about their well being, it is about their discipline and willingness to follow orders. In a military setting you need someone who will not panic and will act on their training no matter the price. In a civilian setting an employee’s life is rarely on the line and you rarely need blind obedience. So it is comparing apples to oranges.

Drill sergeants aren’t field commanders and their roles are different.

As long as you’re pointing to movies as an example, compare the first act in Full Metal Jacket (the infamous boot camp scenes) to the second and third acts in the field. The drill sergeant broke down and rebuilt his recruits because that’s his job. The field commanders have a much more informal relationship with their subordinates based on mutual respect and an understanding of who’s in charge.

The field commander who dresses down Joker in front of his fellow soldiers comes off as an overbearing ass who’s lost touch with the men beneath him, but Joker’s squad commander earns his subordinates’ respect through openness and camaraderie (and because they went through boot camp together).

Band of Brothers is another great example. Nixon, Winters, and Lipton are in charge, no question, but their subordinates respect them because the respect is returned.

Holdo dressed down Poe in a situation where a conversation about her plan and how Poe could contribute would have won him over; giving people like Poe direction and purpose is key. She’s a crappy leader if thousands of people needed to die in a slow-moving chase scene for Poe to learn a lesson about leadership.

TV’s Frink said:

Really it seems like you need to just ignore me. Maybe bring back the ignore list and put me on yours. Because you’re not going to change who I am or how I post. I don’t even know why you’d want to, but it sure does seem to bother you.

In short, I don’t think your participation represents a genuine attempt to understand and appreciate ideas beyond your own.

I’ve read plenty of opposing viewpoints from other members whose opinions I respect because they walk through their thought process and provide a basis for their viewpoint. Even if we disagree vehemently, I know where they stand and why. If I believe they’re debating in good faith, no problem.

With you, I mostly get a vibe of, “You’re quite obviously wrong, and I can’t be bothered to explain why.” Being a trickster for the sake of a laugh is kind of your trademark, which is fine; I just ignore it if the OP doesn’t express concern. But when it deviates from silliness or sarcasm and gets closer to people’s political/personal beliefs, I expect more than curt one-liners without substantive commentary or support. It reads as shit-stirring and I have a low tolerance for it.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

Despite every white person supposedly being consciously or subconsciously racist

I see mfm and I aren’t the only two people who post extreme hyperbole.

Yes, I use hyperbole to make my point. What’s the problem?

[facepalm]

My point being that I acknowledge it and I’m not hypocritical about it, unlike you.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

Stop watching media that tells you everything is awful and the world is ending because your candidate lost. It’s poisoning your mind.

Hahahahaha sure. There’s multiple things wrong with this one sentence.

So point them out and refute them instead of posting useless drivel.

Yeah I’ve seen how that goes with you.

And sorry but I don’t post the way you want me to. I don’t try to “win” here.

Because you can’t. Not on the merits of your argument, certainly. I think you’re worried that if you had to put a logical argument together based on facts, you’d collapse your own internal narrative.

I collapsed mine and it was uncomfortable, so I don’t blame you.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

Despite every white person supposedly being consciously or subconsciously racist

I see mfm and I aren’t the only two people who post extreme hyperbole.

Yes, I use hyperbole to make my point. What’s the problem?

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

Stop watching media that tells you everything is awful and the world is ending because your candidate lost. It’s poisoning your mind.

Hahahahaha sure. There’s multiple things wrong with this one sentence.

So point them out and refute them instead of posting useless drivel.

TV’s Frink said:

Comedy has been closed off to all but white males the majority of the time for way too long.

This statement is absurd. mfm already laid out why. Anybody who watches standup, sitcoms, movies, etc. and tries to claim that it’s not representative of a diverse range of genders, races, and backgrounds isn’t paying attention.

In fact, comedy is one of the only places we can acknowledge cultural differences in a comfortable setting and laugh about them rather than screeching “Racist!” at each other. Comedy has done much to bring different people together and has given white people essential exposure to different cultures that they wouldn’t have had otherwise.

TV’s Frink said:

But I also know you love hyperbole and getting outraged at perceived slights.

Uh, hello, pot.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I expect that in an increasingly egalitarian society diversity occurs naturally.

Let me know when it happens.

I think it’s happening all the time.

Ah, problem solved then.

Spoiler - it’s not even close.

Stop watching media that tells you everything is awful and the world is ending because your candidate lost. It’s poisoning your mind.

chyron8472 said:

Jeebus said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

I must be blessed to not suffer any white male guilt.

To some degree, I genuinely feel that people need to be responsible for themselves and stop blaming the rest of society. For example, I understand that the colonists that appeared in America back in the day did horrible things to the Native Americans. I understand that much of the Native American population is poor. But at some point I really don’t see the value in the United States government giving reparations to them anymore.

The value is in helping disadvantaged groups get out of artificial poverty. It’s really hard for people to “pull themselves by their bootstraps” out of a hole that America dug and threw them into. You agree that Native Americans are not doing well right now, and I hope you can agree that it’s largely due to America’s past actions. Why prolong their suffering?

I’m fairly certain people in Europe conquered other people in Europe over the centuries, and I doubt many of the conquered over there get reparations for it. I know that sounds callous, but I still feel that way.

Because getting a handout does not help one feel successful. I understand some people need it, but it will not ultimately motivate them to create a situation for themselves where they don’t need it. In some respect, people may even take it for granted and come to accept indefinite dependence on it.

I don’t see how this is at all analogous.

It is analogous because, although it’s hard for people to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”, to some degree it is necessary. If you want something bad enough, you need to fight for it. Having the government paying them does not necessarily ultimately lessen their suffering, but rather allows it to fester, because sometimes pain is necessary to affect change. Removing pain caused by injury does not necessarily help the injury to heal itself.

One of the most surprising things to me is the increase in minority support for Trump since he’s been in office, especially among blacks. Part of what’s driving that upswing – which I think is only going to continue trending in that direction – is a movement on the center-right to get black people thinking about what exactly the Democrats have done to improve their lives in the last 60 years (or ever, really). Black conservatives like Larry Elders argue black people overall have it worse since the Civil Rights Act passed, not better. Way more kids raised without fathers, millions of black men in prison thanks in large part to crime bills supported by black community leadership like Sharpton and Jackson and signed by President Clinton, insane black-on-black crime rates, a drug war supported by both parties that has disproportionately affected black people, etc.

Now that’s not to suggest that the Civil Rights Act caused these problems, just that it hasn’t done anything to solve them. Despite every white person supposedly being consciously or subconsciously racist, the Asian and Indian communities have done extremely well academically and professionally in the U.S., so they prove minorities can be very successful here. In fact, Asians have done so well that Harvard implemented an admissions program that reduced Asian acceptance rates in favor of “diversity”, which has them in a lot of hot water at the moment.

Maybe telling someone they’re a victim of their circumstances and their race from the day they’re born sets them up with a poor foundation for success. The movement is pushing for black people to stop blaming white people because it hasn’t moved the black community forward, stop looking to politicians (even black politicians) to solve their problems, and look to themselves to figure out a way forward.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

What does a rude barista or stuttering have to do with politics?

When these sorts of things happen, we normally discuss them in the politics thread. It sorta has to do with with bigotry and discrimination, and that sorta gets into politics.

Fair enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jul/04/terry-gilliam-on-diversity-bbc-monty-python-black-lesbian?CMP=share_btn_tw

I no longer want to be a white male, I don’t want to be blamed for everything wrong in the world: I tell the world now I’m a black lesbian… My name is Loretta and I’m a BLT, a black lesbian in transition.

DrDre said:

dahmage said:

what the literal f*$&

goodness, i think i am gonna check out too. now we are saying that because one real life general doesn’t like what they did in star wars, that makes it bad? HAH. you can find a real life general to say that everything that happens in real life is bad too, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. SMH.

Did you read the article? What’s so shocking about someone using his real life experience on military leadership to make an assessment of how a character behaves in a movie, and whether such behaviour in a real life situation would constitute good leadership? These characters are presented as role models to an extend, and people identify with them. It seems to me, that someone with actual expertise on military leadership would have a more informed opinion, than the average person, but I guess that only matters, if the opinion is favourable to TLJ, like for example when a physicist states Holdo’s kamikaze act would be physically plausible in their “expert” opinion.

You don’t even have to base your argument on a military context to show that Holdo is a bad leader. Bad workplace managers exhibit the same traits. I recoiled at her response to Poe’s questions. Is that how you inspire confidence and loyalty? Dressing down your subordinates and pulling rank?

Even brash, cocky people like Poe are usually well-meaning and only need appropriate outlets for their energy. I always do my best as a manager to maintain the delicate balance between keeping my employees informed and empowered, and still making it clear who’s in charge when the time comes to make a final decision. If I ever spoke to an employee like Holdo did to Poe, they’d be right to lack confidence in my leadership abilities, and if I had a manager who talked to me that way, I’d be looking for a new job. Not an option in the military, unfortunately (well, I guess Poe considered mutiny an option, and I was kind of rooting for him after seeing what a dickhead Holdo was).

What does a rude barista or stuttering have to do with politics?

SilverWook said:

George really should have made a trilogy with the OT cast in the late 80’s/early 90’s. That would have been the second coming. Or not.

I’m not sure Hamill is biting the hand. The youtube videos that attempt to read between the lines of Mark’s public statements are on a level with the people who think The Shining is Kubrick’s confession to faking the Moon landings. 😉

I don’t think Mark wants to be the fandom fringe torch bearer either way.

There’s no reading between the lines required in some of these interviews. Hamill clearly didn’t agree with Rian’s version of Luke and he’s said so repeatedly.

I agree that he isn’t looking to be a torch bearer, but he’s also admirable for calling it like he sees it and not being full of shit.

Gothamknight said:

One of my biggest disappointments is not seeing the Big Three on screen together one last time. There were just SO MANY better ways the writing could have gone for both these films.

This is also my biggest gripe with TFA. I’m convinced Abrams fell in love with the idea of that overly dramatic TFA cliffhanger ending and forced the script and characters to lead into it.

Imagine one last adventure with the old gang properly passing the torch to the new cast. Imagine the drama of Han being reunited with Luke and Leia, only to sacrifice himself heroically to save them soon after, and how bittersweet that reunion/separation would be (and imagine the tension of Luke watching his nephew and former student – and Leia watching her son – kill his father in front of him). Imagine Leia leading the resistance with Luke standing by her side at the end of TFA. Imagine the conflict within Luke as he trains Rey in TLJ (actually TRAINS her and watches her become a Jedi) in order to confront Kylo after Luke’s failed training (derivative, but so much of TFA is already derivative it hardly matters).

It’s God damn depressing.

SilverWook said:

snooker said:

For anyone who wants to see pure hatred for something:

https://old.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/

I really like this movie, and reading some threads over on that Reddit make me feel really uneasy.

Threads such as “Does Rey have any friends?”, “The cinematography in TLJ is overrated”, and the great “All 50+ times Mark Hamill tried to subtly warn us about last jedi/force awakens and bashed Disney”

FFS

Reddit is an abyss like twitter and youtube comments. Don’t stare into it for too long!

How come Mark is largely getting a pass from these fans while other SW actors get crap thrown at them? The people who think he’s somehow going to secretly record new dialog for a fanedit are a whole new level of denial.

Because Hamill has said in multiple interviews that he wasn’t on board with Luke’s arc in TLJ, but that it was his job as an actor to play the role and trust the writer (calling out Rian Johnson by name each time). He gets a pass from these fans because he’s willing to bite the hand that feeds him and, in their eyes, defend the franchise as they want it to be rather than what it is now; his character is dead and probably only eligible for a walk-on as a Force ghost in future installments anyway. He didn’t sound too happy about his 30 seconds of screen time in TFA either.

Hamill is solidly defending female cast members from the nasty attacks as he should, but it’s pretty clear where he falls creatively.

SilverWook said:

I always thought it was a homage to the old Parker Bros. Atari 2600 ROTJ game. 😛

I think I drew a better Death Star than they did.

dahmage said:

I suspect the real answer is because it has a more distinct look at that small size. DSI might just look like an odd circle. DSII looks like a death star even when 8-bit.

This, and I just have a preference for the aesthetics of the unfinished Death Star.

JediKnightFay said:

Im a… NERD oh my GOD…

Welcome to the club.

Amazon Prime members can get a pile of free games over the next couple weeks through Twitch:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/twitch-joins-the-prime-day-party-immediately-with-a-fortnight-of-game-giveaways/

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

Nothing in the Constitution says I can’t smoke pot, medicinal or otherwise. If the mistake (conspiracy?) of the Drug War is undone, states would have to decide what to do about drug use – and what they should decide (but they won’t because $$$) is to stay the hell out of everyone’s lives.

Laws surrounding cultivating marijuana, brewing alcohol, or producing any other substance are all governmental overreach.

There are enforcement problems with leaving certain things like that up to the states. If one state says you can’t produce or distribute pot, and the neighboring state says you can, people who live near enough to the neighbor will just go over there, purchase it, and bring it back. It’s a major reason why using Chicago as a proof that gun control doesn’t work is flawed. People can still go to the suburbs to buy them and it really isn’t that inconvenient to do so.

Having certain things handled at the federal level solves issues with enforcing laws that cross state lines.

My point is that growing and smoking pot aren’t prohibited by the Constitution and neither state nor federal laws have any business regulating it. If a state regulates marijuana, it’s the federal government’s job to step in and overrule the state’s violation of the Constitution. Everything with pot is backwards, though, because of its ridiculous classification as a Schedule 1 substance under federal guidelines.

It’s a state’s job to determine what works for its own population at a local level and the federal government’s job to make sure you aren’t terrorized by your own state. The truth is that many people, evil and well-meaning alike, enjoy forcing others to do as they’d do rather than minding their own damn business.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

Nothing in the Constitution says I can’t smoke pot, medicinal or otherwise. If the mistake (conspiracy?) of the Drug War is undone, states would have to decide what to do about drug use – and what they should decide (but they won’t because $$$) is to stay the hell out of everyone’s lives.

Laws surrounding cultivating marijuana, brewing alcohol, or producing any other substance are all governmental overreach.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:
Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).

You’re not?

You read right.

Could you elaborate? In what way aren’t you a states’ right absolutist? Are you a 10th amendment absolutist?

For example, I think the federal government has the authority to regulate health insurance. And as a matter of policy I can’t say it is best for the states to regulate it. That doesn’t mean I think the federal government can do anything it wants relating to health insurance nor that anything it might do is good, but it’s one area where I’m not opposed to the federal government regulating instead of states.

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I absolutely believe in that…but I don’t know that that answers much.

I never understood why the concept of States’ Rights was so confusing.

States’ Rights begin where the Constitution ends. States can enact laws that make sense for their own people, but they can’t enact laws that violate the Constitution.

Our most transformative federal laws came about because of state laws that conflicted with the Constitution. If a state law is unjust for its own people, it’s probably unjust for all people, which over time causes it to bubble up to the national level. It’s ironic that state tyrants end up being the engine for the societal change they’d so like to see held back.

Pinups and suggestive artwork aren’t against forum rules, but you haven’t been here long enough to cop that kind of attitude. One week vacation.