Jay

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.

DuracellEnergizer said:

darthrush said:

And I really want to get into Star Trek. I have not seen a single movie or TV episode of Star Trek yet. Do any fans here have a reccomendation of where I should start?

From the beginning, and in order of release. I chose to skip Voyager, Enterprise, and Discovery.

I agree with this, and I’d include The Animated Series in the watch category.

Disney spent $4 billion on Lucasfilm plus the cost of 4 Star Wars movies since then. With toy sales also being sluggish, I doubt they’ve recouped their investment yet and I guarantee the return on Solo has somebody at Disney upset.

screams in the void said:

well,that’s just like , your opinion man

Fair enough 😃

screams in the void said:

and still…welcome JediKnightFay.

This too.

screams in the void said:

JediKnightFay said:

Jay said:

JediKnightFay said:

Jay said:

When Kathleen Kennedy wears a t-shirt that says “The Force is Female”, you can safely assume they’re trying to market Star Wars directly to women.

Some think it’s straight-up anti-male. I don’t think it’s intentionally trying to make men look bad, but I do think they dumbed down the men rather than lifted up the women, and it’s to the detriment of all characters. My complaints are with overall character development and inconsistencies in the universe, but that’s probably not something that most casual viewers would find problematic.

You might want to check out this thread:

Culture, politics, and diversity in Star Wars

The discussion gets a bit testy in spots, though.

Just curious: when you say you’re watching them “in order”, do you mean release order (Eps. IV/V/VI followed by Eps. I/I/III) or story order (I/I/III/IV/V/VI)?

Im watching them in this order, I started with Rogue one first and then A New Hope, ect…

Original triology
Episode 4-A New Hope(1977)
Episode 5-Empire Strikes Back(1980)
Episode 6-Return of the Jedi(1983)

Prequel triology
Episode 1-A Phantom Menace(1999)
Episode 2-Attack of the Clones(2002
Episode 3-Revenge of the Sith(2005)

Sequel triology
Epiosde 7-The Force Awakens(2015)
Episode 8-The Last Jedi(2017)…and so on

Is this right? lol. I only got into the series because of that shirtless scene with Kylo… I am complete casual fangirl trash.

Everyone is free to enjoy Star Wars in their own way 😃

That’s the order I’d watch them in (minus going with Rogue One first, but I don’t think that really spoils anything). Which ones have you watched so far?

I started the series with The Force Awakens, then The Last Jedi, now I’m watching it in order correctly starting with Rogue one, then A New Hope, the Empire Strikes Back, and the one I’m on currently is Return of The Jedi.

Welcome JediKnightFay , and no , the force is female shirt that Kathleen Kennedy wore had nothing to do with Lucasfilm and the new movies , it was a completely separate campaign for Nike which you can read about here …http://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-truth-about-the-force-is-female.50049374/

I think that author has to be a special kind of naive to think PR people don’t know what they’re doing when they hand Kathleen Kennedy a t-shirt that says “The Force is Female” at a film festival and ask her to wear it. And she’d have to be a special kind of naive to put it on and not realize it would be seen by fans. “The Force” isn’t culturally relevant because of Nike and their creative team knew exactly what they were doing when they used that wording.

To be clear, I don’t think she was being anti-male or has some crazy feminist agenda. I think Lucasfilm is making a concerted effort to market Star Wars to women, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. I just wish they’d do a better job of it.

Ask Disney if they think $368 million worldwide is a success.

JediKnightFay said:

Jay said:

When Kathleen Kennedy wears a t-shirt that says “The Force is Female”, you can safely assume they’re trying to market Star Wars directly to women.

Some think it’s straight-up anti-male. I don’t think it’s intentionally trying to make men look bad, but I do think they dumbed down the men rather than lifted up the women, and it’s to the detriment of all characters. My complaints are with overall character development and inconsistencies in the universe, but that’s probably not something that most casual viewers would find problematic.

You might want to check out this thread:

Culture, politics, and diversity in Star Wars

The discussion gets a bit testy in spots, though.

Just curious: when you say you’re watching them “in order”, do you mean release order (Eps. IV/V/VI followed by Eps. I/I/III) or story order (I/I/III/IV/V/VI)?

Im watching them in this order, I started with Rogue one first and then A New Hope, ect…

Original triology
Episode 4-A New Hope(1977)
Episode 5-Empire Strikes Back(1980)
Episode 6-Return of the Jedi(1983)

Prequel triology
Episode 1-A Phantom Menace(1999)
Episode 2-Attack of the Clones(2002
Episode 3-Revenge of the Sith(2005)

Sequel triology
Epiosde 7-The Force Awakens(2015)
Episode 8-The Last Jedi(2017)…and so on

Is this right? lol. I only got into the series because of that shirtless scene with Kylo… I am complete casual fangirl trash.

Everyone is free to enjoy Star Wars in their own way 😃

That’s the order I’d watch them in (minus going with Rogue One first, but I don’t think that really spoils anything). Which ones have you watched so far?

When Kathleen Kennedy wears a t-shirt that says “The Force is Female”, you can safely assume they’re trying to market Star Wars directly to women.

Some think it’s straight-up anti-male. I don’t think it’s intentionally trying to make men look bad, but I do think they dumbed down the men rather than lifted up the women, and it’s to the detriment of all characters. My complaints are with overall character development and inconsistencies in the universe, but that’s probably not something that most casual viewers would find problematic.

You might want to check out this thread:

Culture, politics, and diversity in Star Wars

The discussion gets a bit testy in spots, though.

Just curious: when you say you’re watching them “in order”, do you mean release order (Eps. IV/V/VI followed by Eps. I/I/III) or story order (I/I/III/IV/V/VI)?

My all-time favorite show is The Prisoner. SciFi Channel showed it Sunday nights in their early days on the air. I’d never seen anything like it and was hooked instantly. They also used to do a marathon during a certain holiday (I can’t remember which one) and I looked forward to it all year.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

LuckyGungan2001 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

I’m pretty sure TLJ has had about as much hate as the Prequels.

I’d love to know how you can be pretty sure about that.

With my age group at least, I’m fairly certain it does. Most people I talk to don’t mind the prequels and dislike TLJ.

Ever heard of the concept of small sample size or anecdotal evidence?

Your scientifically credible evidence for backing your position consists of…?

Come on man. My position is that you can’t make a statistically relevant data set from talking to your friends. What position do you think I was presenting?

Uh, the opposite one (prequels bad, TLJ good)?

DominicCobb said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Handman said:

Collipso said:

man, staring at someone and looking at the direction someone’s in is very clearly and very noticeably different.

How would you quantify that legally?

Who is talking about legal definitions? Wasn’t this 5-second-rule just part of a guideline to provide a rule of thumb? Why is everyone talking like this is a proposal for an actual law?

People love getting offended.

Especially by people staring at them.

Collipso said:

man, staring at someone and looking at the direction someone’s in is very clearly and very noticeably different.

Looking in someone’s direction: < 5s

Staring: >= 5s

I never knew human behavior was so neat and tidy. Guess we can shut down all those worthless psychology departments and professional therapists and replace them with corporate HR guidelines.

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

I guess my question is ‘who decides what staring at someone is?’ Could someone conceivably get in trouble for staring at something behind someone else? What if someone’s just staring into space, but someone else thinks they’re being stared at?

Come on.

Ever smile at someone because you think they’re smiling at you, but they’re actually smiling at someone else? Same with waving.

Attempting to set guidelines for looking at people is beyond stupid. I can’t believe this is where we are as a society. Of course, it’s mostly in America/Canada. Check out the interviews of foreigners on YouTube who are asked about misogyny, racism, political correctness, etc. They think we’ve lost our minds.

TV’s Frink said:

LuckyGungan2001 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

I’m pretty sure TLJ has had about as much hate as the Prequels.

I’d love to know how you can be pretty sure about that.

With my age group at least, I’m fairly certain it does. Most people I talk to don’t mind the prequels and dislike TLJ.

Ever heard of the concept of small sample size or anecdotal evidence?

Your scientifically credible evidence for backing your position consists of…?

TV’s Frink said:
Just don’t act like a creep. It’s really not that hard.

Maybe not everyone has the same definition of “creepy”, because it’s a label based entirely on feelings.

I’m concerned with actual crimes and don’t care about coddling people who feel uncomfortable.

TV’s Frink said:

And it’s hard to take any post seriously that uses the word “microaggresion.” Might as well call someone who was harassed a snowflake while you’re at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression

It’s a real term used by real people to describe how they perceive the world around them. I didn’t make it up, and it’s not an insult conservatives created to “own the libs”, like “snowflake”.

I know it’s difficult to keep all these offensive words straight though, especially when people are inventing new words and new reasons to be offended every day.

TV’s Frink said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’ve stared at people for 5+ seconds before. Unless I’m actively communicating with them, I, a gross creep, fully admit to having creepy intentions. I’m trying to be better, but then again I still have lots of pictures of some of my cute/attractive friends on my phone that they aren’t aware of, so I’m not doing so well.

EDIT: Why yes, this post is a cry for help.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t have creepy intentions. It’s very easy to assume that you do regardless.

Intent absolutely matters, especially if it can put you on the path to unemployment. The feelings of the “victim” don’t cut it. Emphasis should be placed on intent and actual harm done to the person, not how they felt about it in the moment.

Human interaction is messy, and attempting to codify basic interactions like eye contact is absurd. I’m sure facial expressions as microaggressions will be here soon, if they’re not already.

Victim said:

“Someone made a mean face at me and I felt uncomfortable. I was unable to verbalize my feelings at the time like an adult would, so I internalized my trauma and now bring it to HR so you can deal with it for me, because it’s really me who’s the emotionally stunted one here.”

We’re basically training people to be socially inept. No more people-watching. Don’t get caught observing human behavior. Keep your face in your phone. If you become confused by the strange world of fellow humans, your employer will give you guidelines on how to behave if you accidentally make eye contact with someone and how to apologize if they feel threatened.

It’s all ridiculous and I feel sorry for kids growing up thinking this is normal. It’s not.

Jeebus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-new-york-14-primary/index.html

HUGE win for progressives against corporate democrats. A 10-year representative got beaten by a Democratic Socialist. I’m really excited by this trend. Similar candidates are getting selected even in conservative states like Nebraska.

Great to hear. Genuinely surprising, too. I was convinced that she stood no chance. If she wins the general, does that mean we can finally put the “Democrats need to go right to win” meme to bed?

TV’s Frink said:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-retiring/story?id=55052718

This country is about to get demonstrably worse, yet again. Wonderful.

Damn, couldn’t’ve waited 2 more years?

He’ll be 82 next month and two years is a long time at that age. And even though he’s typically seen as the swing vote, he is a Republican. Remaining until after the November elections, which could turn some congressional seats blue, would mean giving the Democrats a shot at nominating someone who could continue to serve as that swing vote.

What should be more worrisome is that the two oldest remaining justices, Ginsburg and Breyer, are both liberal. If Trump sees a full 8 years in office, he might end up nominating their replacements as well.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/families-earning-117000-now-qualify-as-low-income-in-californias-bay-area/

In other news, California’s housing crisis is just as absurd as ever.

So glad I decided to decline a job offer in SF back in 2012.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

He wasn’t banned for Trump, he was banned for nonstop manufacturing drama with other users in spite of months worth of warning to stop. SpacedRanger (or something) was banned for posting pictures of bloody abortions, not for being against abortion. Plus, he came back after his temp ban and insulted all the mods.

All of this.

Yup.

Besides, I’m apparently a closet conservative who sleeps in nothing but his MAGA hat. Don’t know why I’d ban a fellow Trump supporter.

Possessed said:

Well I do understand the stigma with Chinese no name knock offs as sometimes it is much deserved but this one is quite well built. The image is crystal clear and detailed. The only aspect of it that seems lacking is the HUD/interface.

Optoma started off with a reputation as a bit of a knockoff brand and they ended up making a 720p DLP that competed with the Sharp at less than half the cost. They’re pretty well regarded today.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’d prefer not to be the Star Wars web site that achieves notoriety for its members’ open use of that word, especially given the current climate. I also don’t want our site to trigger workplace content filters or get cached in search engine results with that content.

Please refrain from using it in the future. We have a pretty lax policy regarding “bad words” here, but sometimes decorum takes precedence over freedom of speech.

You’re just putting the kibosh on saying the word outright, correct? The discussion we are having is still okay right? and saying “n-word” and “n_____” is okay right?

Discussion is okay. Direct use is not, for the reasons I stated. Other methods of referencing the word are fine.

I’ve edited posts to remove its direct use.

I’d prefer not to be the Star Wars web site that achieves notoriety for its members’ open use of that word, especially given the current climate. I also don’t want our site to trigger workplace content filters or get cached in search engine results with that content.

Please refrain from using it in the future. We have a pretty lax policy regarding “bad words” here, but sometimes decorum takes precedence over freedom of speech.

About 15 years ago, I was into front projection heavily and spent a lot of time and money on the hobby. During that period, 720p was as good as it got at anything resembling a reasonable consumer price point. There were some CRT-based projectors that could do 1080p, but they were the size of a small car and expensive to set up and maintain. I think the best projector I owned was the Sharp XV-Z12000 DLP; I’d never seen a display that could be dialed in so precisely (it offered full control of both primary and secondary colors in the user menu, which was unheard of at the time, and absolutely nailed D65 and Rec 709 after calibration).

There was very little HD content available via cable, however. I had a D-Theater deck that I got free as part of a dealer promo, but ended up selling it because I knew 1080i on tape was a dead-end format, so I spent most of my time watching DVDs. I had a 92" screen (80" x 45"), which is fairly conservative by projection standards, and the limitations of 480p material are readily apparent even at that size. The best discs at the time looked very good when upscaled and projected, but any flaw in the transfer at all was immediately noticeable. I often spent more time critiquing the picture than watching the movie.

Since the image quality was frequently lacking at that size, I decided I wouldn’t be happy until 1080p projectors were affordable and HD content was available on disc, so I sold my entire setup (which consisted of an Anthem AVM-20, a couple Rotel amps, and M&K THX speakers) and got out of the hobby. I’ve been getting by with a 50" plasma and more conservative 2-channel setup since then, but I think front projection and source materials have both improved enough that I could get back into a much larger image and be happy with it. I suppose I’d have to get used to elevated black levels again, but I think the sheer impact of having such a large display coupled with a powerful sound system more than makes up for that one shortcoming.

I’ll probably be moving in a few months, so I’ll be making sure the new place has enough space to accommodate a projector for sure. I was hoping laser-based LED projectors would’ve been more affordable by now, but even a bulb-based 4K model is more than comparable to a theatrical projector in terms of overall fidelity. Have to jump in at some point and just enjoy it.

TV’s Frink said:

You can use that term. It’s how it’s been being used that is causing the objection I think.

What term would you like me to use when criticizing liberals?

Politics belong here. In fact, there’s no reason to limit all politics to a single thread any longer. Feel free to debate different issues in different threads and avoid those you don’t want to involve yourself with.

A quick browse through The Cantina should make it pretty clear why it exists.

Edit: Political discussion is now forbidden.