Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
17-Jun-2018
Posts
4240

Post History

Post
#1214425
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

meds I don’t want.

Why?

Medication helped me a lot after we lost our daughter. As did group therapy.

I don’t want to spend money on medication and I don’t want to be medicated. As for group therapy, I don’t know why I would want to be in a group with anybody, but especially not group therapy. I credit them for the business model though. You can see a lot more customers rather than one at a time.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Therapists are a waste. I don’t want to sit on a couch and pay some bastard hundreds of dollars to listen to me tell him about my childhood and then prescribe me some meds I don’t want. As for your “Happiness is possible,” line, that’s a gross generalization. It’s one of the really sickening attitudes that the public tends to have. I hinted at it in a recent conversation in the Politics thread, but such statements (or lies as I prefer to call them) insult me. They’re just vague bullshit lines that people can throw at others and pretend that they’re being helpful. Handman can, and should, do whatever the hell he wants; I was just making a suggestion.

Given that there are people who find more happiness than you believe is possible, I’d say it’s obvious that happiness is possible. I don’t know who finds total carefree bliss, but that’s clearly not what I’m talking about. This is about recognizing and living up to potential.

You must feel you have a really good reason for thinking it isn’t possible for you to become happier.

Happiness seems like a delusion to me, so I don’t find it appealing anymore.

Without some kind of assistance I don’t know how you can bounce back from that belief.

But even if you want to accept happiness is a delusion, why wouldn’t you choose that delusion?

I’m not delusional.

It must be an awfully easy thing to be under this delusion. How were you able to escape it? And what’s the value in [seeing life as it really is]?

Post
#1214381
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

meds I don’t want.

Why?

Medication helped me a lot after we lost our daughter. As did group therapy.

I don’t want to spend money on medication and I don’t want to be medicated. As for group therapy, I don’t know why I would want to be in a group with anybody, but especially not group therapy. I credit them for the business model though. You can see a lot more customers rather than one at a time.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Therapists are a waste. I don’t want to sit on a couch and pay some bastard hundreds of dollars to listen to me tell him about my childhood and then prescribe me some meds I don’t want. As for your “Happiness is possible,” line, that’s a gross generalization. It’s one of the really sickening attitudes that the public tends to have. I hinted at it in a recent conversation in the Politics thread, but such statements (or lies as I prefer to call them) insult me. They’re just vague bullshit lines that people can throw at others and pretend that they’re being helpful. Handman can, and should, do whatever the hell he wants; I was just making a suggestion.

Given that there are people who find more happiness than you believe is possible, I’d say it’s obvious that happiness is possible. I don’t know who finds total carefree bliss, but that’s clearly not what I’m talking about. This is about recognizing and living up to potential.

You must feel you have a really good reason for thinking it isn’t possible for you to become happier.

Happiness seems like a delusion to me, so I don’t find it appealing anymore.

Without some kind of assistance I don’t know how you can bounce back from that belief.

But even if you want to accept happiness is a delusion, why wouldn’t you choose that delusion?

Post
#1214380
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

SilverWook said:

Heard a racket behind my house and stuck my head out the door just in time to see some neighborhood kids chasing a cat under a parked car. One started throwing rocks when they couldn’t get at it. They got so far under the vehicle I was hoping they’d get stuck. Little bastards.

Another good argument for birth control.

Post
#1214355
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Therapists are a waste. I don’t want to sit on a couch and pay some bastard hundreds of dollars to listen to me tell him about my childhood and then prescribe me some meds I don’t want. As for your “Happiness is possible,” line, that’s a gross generalization. It’s one of the really sickening attitudes that the public tends to have. I hinted at it in a recent conversation in the Politics thread, but such statements (or lies as I prefer to call them) insult me. They’re just vague bullshit lines that people can throw at others and pretend that they’re being helpful. Handman can, and should, do whatever the hell he wants; I was just making a suggestion.

Given that there are people who find more happiness than you believe is possible, I’d say it’s obvious that happiness is possible. I don’t know who finds total carefree bliss, but that’s clearly not what I’m talking about. This is about recognizing and living up to potential.

You must feel you have a really good reason for thinking it isn’t possible for you to become happier.

Post
#1213417
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/31/media/samantha-bee-apologizes-ivanka-trump/index.html

Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a feckless cunt in response to the for some reason viral photo of Ivanka with her toddler. I don’t get the controversy over this particular photo or the controversy over this line. I do know that Bee shouldn’t have apologized. The people mad at her for saying it won’t forgive her and her supporters will just perceive it as weakness.

They should cancel her show!

I’m actually surprised every time I hear she still has a show.

Post
#1213370
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I agree with your book publisher example, but imagine if there was only one book publisher with any kind of audience. That’s essentially what Youtube is, or Facebook. And book publishing is totally different. That actually requires printing copies and advertising. Youtube and Facebook and Twitter are just platforms.

Imagine if there were only one book publisher. The best thing is to go start your own publishing company. Not force that company to print what you want them to. And what do you mean by “just platforms”?

Obviously no one can start a competing Youtube at this point. Any such attempt would be delusional. I mean they’re just platforms because they’re in no way obligated to do anything other than be a platform for the videos or the speech. They’re not responsible for advertising a video or producing or printing anything like a publisher would be.

It’s certainly possible to start a competitor to YouTube. The idea that it’s YouTube only and forever is delusional.

Because blip.tv (which is now defunct) was so popular compared to Youtube. Or like Google+ is so popular compared to Facebook.

Ridiculous. You’re completely ignoring the effect market share can have on the success of a competing product or service. It’s like saying someone should build their own app store if they don’t like Google Play or Apple’s App Store. As though new customers would just come out of the woodwork when they’ve already invested so much in the other service.

To acknowledge that Steam or Youtube have basically cornered the market on their respective services is not delusional. There are competitors to Steam. But Steam is still by far the biggest dog in the yard, and for good reason. No one is saying “only and forever”, but to assume they don’t have near-monopolistic influences on their markets is rather foolish.

Good thing I didn’t argue that and actually said just the opposite several times early in this discussion. The question is what to do about it.

I say alternative outlets are feasible and laws, and least the kind mfm proposes, would do great harm. Dom cites an alternative video site that he says is pretty popular. Can it grow further? Wook’s observation indicates they are working on growth.

I’d like to see YouTube and other near-monopolistic sites change their ways. I’d like more competition.

You didn’t cite MySpace which was extremely popular. Competition drove them out. I do worry that the internet is congealing, making competition harder and empowering those who want to control social discourse. The question still is what to do.

Post
#1213257
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I agree with your book publisher example, but imagine if there was only one book publisher with any kind of audience. That’s essentially what Youtube is, or Facebook. And book publishing is totally different. That actually requires printing copies and advertising. Youtube and Facebook and Twitter are just platforms.

Imagine if there were only one book publisher. The best thing is to go start your own publishing company. Not force that company to print what you want them to. And what do you mean by “just platforms”?

Obviously no one can start a competing Youtube at this point. Any such attempt would be delusional. I mean they’re just platforms because they’re in no way obligated to do anything other than be a platform for the videos or the speech. They’re not responsible for advertising a video or producing or printing anything like a publisher would be.

It’s certainly possible to start a competitor to YouTube. The idea that it’s YouTube only and forever is delusional.

I’m not sure what you mean about platforms not being obligated. YouTube does plenty of things and can choose to do more at any moment. It can collaborate with and advertise user content (for all I know they might do some of this).

YouTube must expend money to host the videos which is very much like printing in a digital sense. Transcripts are generated. YouTube is producing and advertising it’s own content.

Twitter is active in deciding who to publish and how, shadow banning being one method. I was contacted by someone at the company looking for advice on credible people who tweet on certain topics so that those people could be promoted on the platform.

I recognize the tension between the competing values and come out in favor of free speech. That doesn’t mean a law. Certainly not one that does greater damage to free speech than it addresses.

Enforcing the 1st amendment on integral media platforms doesn’t do greater damage to free speech than it addresses. Youtube, to use that example, is a monolith that is the only real video platform available to people.

I see videos posted on here related to fan edits that use different sites.

Not sites with any kind of audience.

I think there are increasing opportunities for a new site that is more free speech friendly.

Post
#1213073
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I agree with your book publisher example, but imagine if there was only one book publisher with any kind of audience. That’s essentially what Youtube is, or Facebook. And book publishing is totally different. That actually requires printing copies and advertising. Youtube and Facebook and Twitter are just platforms.

Imagine if there were only one book publisher. The best thing is to go start your own publishing company. Not force that company to print what you want them to. And what do you mean by “just platforms”?

I recognize the tension between the competing values and come out in favor of free speech. That doesn’t mean a law. Certainly not one that does greater damage to free speech than it addresses.

Enforcing the 1st amendment on integral media platforms doesn’t do greater damage to free speech than it addresses. Youtube, to use that example, is a monolith that is the only real video platform available to people.

I see videos posted on here related to fan edits that use different sites.

Post
#1213071
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Anyone who cares about this video game but does not care about the lack of effective mental health laws in this country doesn’t actually give a damn about the lives of the students in these school shootings.

Phrased that way it doesn’t provide good discussion fodder, I hope you see.

If we’re talking about “unproductive” I am at discussion, how is it any more productive for you to ignore things that actually disprove your arguments, if you can even call them that. You said that Trump disavowed Roy Moore a while back and I proved you wrong yet you completely ignored it.

I’m talking about that particular phrasing you used just then.

But to answer your nonsequitur on Moore: You tried to rationalize your claim that Moore was significant, in part because Trump. What I actually wrote was, “Some of it is really weak guilt by association type stuff. Trump and many other Republicans opposed Moore.” It’s a fact that Trump supported Moore’s opponent in the primary. Trump went on to endorse Moore in the general election in terms of ‘we need a Republican/we need to oppose the Democrats’ not ‘Roy Moore is so great’. So if your point is that Roy Moore is significant because Trump provided a generic endorsement in the end to protect the Republican agenda: not very convincing.

A person can reasonably believe the game is terrible, that there is no reasonable gun control law that will effectively stop school shootings, and care tremendously about those lives.

They’re wrong about gun control and all the data proves them wrong. Ignoring or obstructing the only thing that can actually address the problem while targeting a game no one has ever heard of proves to me that they don’t care too much about those lives, because if they did then they wouldn’t be distracting from the real issue. Just like how climate change deniers don’t really care about the environment.

I don’t know who all these people are. I think a person of any political persuasion would be troubled by that game. Your generalizations don’t strike me as terribly accurate.

At some point I’ll get into “global warming” with you 😉

Post
#1213031
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I recognize the tension between the competing values and come out in favor of free speech. That doesn’t mean a law. Certainly not one that does greater damage to free speech than it addresses.

Post
#1213029
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Anyone who cares about this video game but does not care about the lack of effective mental health laws in this country doesn’t actually give a damn about the lives of the students in these school shootings.

Phrased that way it doesn’t provide good discussion fodder, I hope you see.

A person can reasonably believe the game is terrible, that there is no reasonable gun control law that will effectively stop school shootings, and care tremendously about those lives.

Post
#1212895
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Two of the more painful to read passages as a Star Wars fan.:

Eventually, they passed a wonky economic thesis-sounding bill a Wookiee would know was dead on arrival in the Senate.

But if the GOP doesn’t offer voters “A New Hope” for their healthcare soon, they should heed the words Yoda told Luke Skywalker about being afraid of Darth Vader: “You will be. You will be.”

Post
#1212703
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

Jeebus said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

As for mrebo, no one is cutting off the right, they’re bigger than ever on Youtube and just want to play the victim like they always do.

Yes, people on the right are being cut off. It’s not “playing victim” when powerful media corporations shut out people based on their political views.

Except that’s not what’s happening, at least in Youtube’s case. Youtube is demonetizing a great many people, not all of them are conservative or even political commentators at all. Left-wing commentators, gun channels, “reaction” channels, gaming channels, it’s happening across the board.

I have a problem with youtube’s demonetizing in general. I am more familiar with people on the right being targeted (and I’d include gun channels in that), but I am also aware of youtube discriminating against reaction & gaming channels for swearing (or extreme antics). But I’m not just talking youtube.

Extreme antics is an interesting way to describe racial slurs, anti-semitic language, and making light of suicide (including footage of a dead body). Amongst other things.

Those are extreme examples but I didn’t intend my phrasing to be comprehensive in any event.

There’s an argument to be made too that Youtube is a private company and can decide who makes money on their site or not as they please.

You don’t see me advocating legislation. Doesn’t mean I need to accept whatever a private company does. In fact, I can go on a Star Wars fan site and gripe about it! When major corporations seek to enforce restrictions on speech that should be cause for concern.

Post
#1212687
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jeebus said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

As for mrebo, no one is cutting off the right, they’re bigger than ever on Youtube and just want to play the victim like they always do.

Yes, people on the right are being cut off. It’s not “playing victim” when powerful media corporations shut out people based on their political views.

Except that’s not what’s happening, at least in Youtube’s case. Youtube is demonetizing a great many people, not all of them are conservative or even political commentators at all. Left-wing commentators, gun channels, “reaction” channels, gaming channels, it’s happening across the board.

I have a problem with youtube’s demonetizing in general. I am more familiar with people on the right being targeted (and I’d include gun channels in that), but I am also aware of youtube discriminating against reaction & gaming channels for swearing (or extreme antics). But I’m not just talking youtube.

Post
#1212650
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

As for mrebo, no one is cutting off the right, they’re bigger than ever on Youtube and just want to play the victim like they always do.

Yes, people on the right are being cut off. It’s not “playing victim” when powerful media corporations shut out people based on their political views. Sometimes people are denied a platform (such as twitter shadow banning conservatives) and its also on revenue.

Youtube is censoring anyone that is a corporate outlet including many leftists.

Examples? And doesn’t that bother you?

I’ll give you another example of someone even shittier than Roseanne, Steven Crowder. Crowder made a disgusting video claiming that AIDS was never an epidemic and that research money is wasted because most people that die of AIDS are gay. Crowder is a disgusting pile of dishonest shit and I hate him, but I don’t want him to get removed from YouTube for not representing Youtube’s values. That’s a little different because Crowder’s show is a propaganda outlet and Roseanne’s was actually a real show and her offensive comments were made outside of the show, but again, these are just more examples of the media sucking and being terrible.

Well then we seem to agree.

People that are far dumber than Roseanne surround us already. They’re your neighbors, they’re your coworkers, they’re your family, although they actually have no redeeming qualities while Roseanne actually has at least one.

Did you give that speech at the last BBQ you attended?

So ultimately, I don’t care. Again, this is just going to lead to these dying TV corporations aligning with people that they suspect won’t do anything remotely offensive, and that’s going to lead to safer programming, and as we all know safe programming sucks horribly and is unwatchable dogshit.

I’ve been watching Blue Bloods, surprisingly watchable.

Post
#1212645
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It did actually. It defended him and showed the white-trash Roseanne character accepting him. Either way, I don’t care if a show is progressive or not. I’m opposed to cancelling them because of stupid shit said by the stupid people behind the show. I was even opposed to cancelling Laura Ingraham for the same reason. Even though she actually is a propaganda outlet, it sets a precedent that anything associated with anything offensive needs to get cancelled which can only lead to two outcomes: safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people, both of which suck shit.

I’ll try to get to your other stuff, but hey we agree on this. Increasingly there are stories of the major internet companies cutting off ad revenue to people (particularly on the right). It’s a dangerous level of sensitivity by people with enormous power.

These seem like two very different issues to me, but perhaps I misread.

I don’t think they’re that different. In any event, goes to mfm’s point about safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people.

I think ABC (and media outlets in general) shouldn’t be so sensitive and fearful. They can disavow Roseanne’s tweet and maintain a popular show providing employment to many people and presenting a unique perspective.

Maybe this will be confusing to some, but I’ve always hated that show, think Roseanne is terrible, and had morbid curiosity about the revival but not enough to watch.