Mrebo

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mrebo said:

I dislike Boston on principle, never having been there.

Just how much of the Omniverse do you hate?

Most of the parts I’m aware of, which isn’t very much I think.

I like the insanity of the winter in Chicago. If I didn’t care about being near family I’d be back there in a heartbeat. I miss commiserating with the monkeys at the zoo, running along the lake, really just everything.

I dislike Boston on principle, never having been there.

Collipso said:

I want to get American citizenship and live in Chicago the rest of my life.

I lived several years in Chicago and I consider going back there, it’s a great city.

chyron8472 said:

DominicCobb said:

chyron8472 said:

DominicCobb said:

chyron8472 said:

On the subject of the regulation (or lack thereof) of streaming content, it continues to bother me that streaming services have very little in the way of censorship. I posted in the TV Shows thread about Altered Carbon and dahmage said he doesn’t have the time for yet another non-family friendly show. I agree.

I really wish there was some sort of censorship board for streaming content because I’m sick of professional content producers (like CBS All Access or Netflix) including swearing, violence, and nudity simply because they have no one telling them not to. I would also include HBO, but that particular ship has long since sailed.

Why censor and tie the hands of creatives just because you don’t like bad words? You can always use IMDb’s parents guide if you’re worried they’re going to show too much side boob.

It’s not just for my daughter or my wife. It’s for me. I don’t appreciate the gratuitousness of some content being unnecessarily adult. I don’t like Veep swearing like it’s going out of style just because. I don’t like characters in a Star Trek show repeatedly saying “fuck” because it’s edgy and no one says they can’t. They are so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they don’t stop to think if they should.

I mean, they could at least put a MPAA rating info or whatever on the card for a show or movie.

You can always use IMDb’s parents guide if you’re worried they’re going to show too much side boob or use incredibly common place words that unfortunately hurt your ears.

So you’re saying that before I watch anything anywhere online, I am required to do research on it? And you’re also attacking my interest in tastefulness or decency? You might not care if words and actions are “incredibly common place” among your circle of friends and family, but don’t belittle me because I do care.

FWIW, I share your sensibilities. Even if “attacking” is too strong a word, judging/belittling is accurate. So many times I’ve been told I would love Veep and I assure them I don’t find it entertaining. And it’s not just there’s lots of swearing but the fact that underneath the swearing there’s very little that’s amusing or interesting. I agree swearing is used as a crutch by far too many.

The fact that something is incredibly commonplace doesn’t make it any more attractive. Whether there’s a time/place for it varies by taste. The fact that our society finds it increasingly acceptable is irrelevant to whether we personally like it, though it does mean we are subject to the media catering to those tastes.

At the end of the day, when anyone can put content out there, the responsibility falls on us to monitor content. Too many dangers in getting the government involved.

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

On the subject of the regulation (or lack thereof) of streaming content, it continues to bother me that streaming services have very little in the way of censorship. I posted in the TV Shows thread about Altered Carbon and dahmage said he doesn’t have the time for yet another non-family friendly show. I agree.

I really wish there was some sort of censorship board for streaming content because I’m sick of professional content producers (like CBS All Access or Netflix) including swearing, violence, and nudity simply because they have no one telling them not to. I would also include HBO, but that particular ship has long since sailed.

Are you an American? I’m curious, not judging 😉

Yes. Why?

I’m not saying producers can’t create mature content. I’m saying I wish they didn’t choose to just because they can. I wish it was easier to curate content and sift out adult stuff from something safer for my daughter to watch or something my wife wouldn’t want to quickly turn off.

That ethos of censorship is common in other Western countries. I agree would be nice to identify but I’m not keen on government rules censoring content.

chyron8472 said:

On the subject of the regulation (or lack thereof) of streaming content, it continues to bother me that streaming services have very little in the way of censorship. I posted in the TV Shows thread about Altered Carbon and dahmage said he doesn’t have the time for yet another non-family friendly show. I agree.

I really wish there was some sort of censorship board for streaming content because I’m sick of professional content producers (like CBS All Access or Netflix) including swearing, violence, and nudity simply because they have no one telling them not to. I would also include HBO, but that particular ship has long since sailed.

Are you an American? I’m curious, not judging 😉

Two big political stories:

Collipso does look like a green headed robot.

Black Panther got a bad review.

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t think it’s politics at all.

See politics, definition 3a

It’s not a governmental issue except to the extent hearings will be held, legislation considered, and YT wants to head that off.

I would think legislation attempts to control content on youtube would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

YouTube is privately owned. Even still, is the FCC violating the first amendment? (my thought on that, by the way: maybe!). Anyway, isn’t this just about not allowing someone to monetize their video?

Agree on the maybe! re FCC. Re Logan, yes. But points to the shoddy fashion YT ignores presence of most bad content. Agree most of this better suited to Current Events, but 1st Amendment issue gets the issue closer to home in this thread.

CA female legislator accused of groping.

politicians

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t think it’s politics at all.

See politics, definition 3a

It’s not a governmental issue except to the extent hearings will be held, legislation considered, and YT wants to head that off.

I would think legislation attempts to control content on youtube would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

Depends on the type of regulation. Network TV content is still regulated. There is an argument that the internet should be regulated in a similar way for the same reason. And a case could be made that YT is a party to certain illegal and dangerous content on its site. Probably not a great case, but enough to exert enormous pressure to change how it operates.

TV’s Frink said:

Someone just dictionexplained.

Dom is right; it’s better placed in Current Events. But I enjoyed doing it anyway. Webster’ should send a few pennies my way for this kind of thing.

OT politics are the most fun of all.

DominicCobb said:

I don’t think it’s politics at all.

See politics, definition 3a

It’s not a governmental issue except to the extent hearings will be held, legislation considered, and YT wants to head that off.

Mixed feelings on the YT thing. There is much that is dumb and dangerous that YT ignores while taking a hamfisted approach to ad revenue to appease advertisers. No sympathy for this Logan.

Politicians may be even dumber than people eating detergent.

dahmage said:

CatBus said:

…aaaaand we’re shutting down again. Congress seems willing to give Trump whatever he wants whenever he wants it, and this week they’re giving him the shutdown he didn’t want last week. Will it be a yoojer shutdown to show who’s got the bigger shutdown button?

Seriously? Damnit.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/politics/rand-paul-analysis/index.html

My disillusionment continues. During Obama’s presidency, as now, there were people in silly hats yelling. I thought those people were right about reining in government and reducing the debt. Tea Party candidates won some seats and the sequester became law. When Trump appeared they faded away or converted to the Trump religion. The few who remain don’t have any power - like Rand, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker. So we’ll get a short meaningless shutdown. And have a big parade.

Liberals have reason to be thankful to have lost the presidency because it forces people to care, creates change, and gets new candidates elected. It’s far more disempowering to have your own party in office doing things that are idiotic and contrary to what they proclaimed. I hope Democrats are far more careful in choosing the form of our destructor than the Republicans the last time round.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Stained clothes are a trademark in my family, so I doubt they have any stain-removing knowledge in their databanks. And my friends are all in my head.

Those are the best kinds of friends. Don’t have any good advice on the stain, except act really surprised when someone tells you there’s a stain on your shirt and declare it must have happened at breakfast/lunch, then ask if they have advice on getting out the stain, and if they do ask them if they will be your friend.

The GOP didn’t even try to find its own legitimate candidate because there’s no real chance of winning.

Dogs react to news should be a standard of modern journalism.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo if you haven’t listened to 538’s podcast series on gerrymandering (or read the articles on the site, I think, which yhwx may have already linked to) I think it’s worth your time. It covers the issue from several different angles, touching on both the who and the why.

I read a 538 article that focused on PA, something along the lines of gerrymandering not being so easy to fix. It was a lot to digest, I’ll see about the podcast.

Collipso said:

dahmage said:

Collipso said:

Guys what the heck is this Pennsylvania mess?? What is the GOP even thinking??

Are you talking about the redistricting?

I am. I know the SC denial happened yesterday, but I just looked more deeply into it and I think that it’s totally pushing it for the GOP. From what I’ve read and heard so far it’s a bit of a common practice, but still. It was not only obvious but it was a bit ridiculous. Maybe it’s more ridiculous to me because I’m not used to it, but I was a bit surprised.

One of the most notorious gerrymanders is in Maryland:

dahmage said:

CatBus said:

That settles it then. They’re invertebrates.

APPROVED. EVERYONE MUST REFER TO POTATOES AS INVERTEBRATES FROM NOW ON. DEBATE SETTLED FOR ALL TIME.

If I find a bone in a potato, you’re going to hear about it.

NeverarGreat said:

Mrebo said:

American politics have been hideous for as long as I’ve been paying attention to them. Every single candidate has been characterized as extreme, dumb, and evil. Viewing it from the right, I witnessed extreme unfairness toward GW Bush, McCain, and Romney. And those on the left saw much the same directed toward their candidates/presidents. So while I see a difference between Trump and those previous candidates/presidents, the reaction is basically what I’d expect no matter who was elected.

Was Hillary characterized as extreme, dumb, and evil? Was Jeb[!]? Kasich?

I’ve become disillusioned about it all. When Republicans nominate someone else, we will still hear how that person is extreme, dumb, and evil (and basically the same, or worse than Trump).

I should have said nominee rather than candidate. Hillary was primarily characterized as extreme and evil. The adjectives vary but the same idea is there. Jeb and Kasich had reputations as moderate, mostly by comparison and by a lack of focus. Kasich is a loon. Even Jeb would have been tarred as dangerous had he been the nominee.

I am from the future.

American politics have been hideous for as long as I’ve been paying attention to them. Every single candidate has been characterized as extreme, dumb, and evil. Viewing it from the right, I witnessed extreme unfairness toward GW Bush, McCain, and Romney. And those on the left saw much the same directed toward their candidates/presidents. So while I see a difference between Trump and those previous candidates/presidents, the reaction is basically what I’d expect no matter who was elected.

I’ve become disillusioned about it all. When Republicans nominate someone else, we will still hear how that person is extreme, dumb, and evil (and basically the same, or worse than Trump). In between presidencies we have people wearing dumb hats and yelling.

I like the reactions without any context. Almost feels like I’m watching it.