Think I’ve had a bit too much coffee to drink (inb4 username joke) and now I’m shaking like Michael J. Fox
I’m not offended by coffee jokes.
I’m in a weird place sleepwise. I alternate between work, home life, and destressing/distraction.
A blog I frequent posted some jokes that made me laugh, here are the tamer ones:
TROPICAL STORM ALERT: Tropical Storm Candace threatens Alabama.Storm looks totally disgusting, no class at all!
TRAVELER WARNING ISSUED FOR TURKEY: Chatter from terrorist groups suggests plot to kidnap Americans.
I know some Turks. Great friends of mine. They always tell me, “You’re so smart, your hair is so golden and lustrous, everyone says it.” Terrific people.
Not so great at hand-washing, though. THIS MUST CHANGE!
Sounds promising to me. The dark matter theory has always seemed like make-believe science.
I give up.
I’ve not been reading any of these posts about the latest conflict, but do let it go. It’s infinitely not worth your brain space. Speaking of brain space there’s an article I mean to post in the astronomy thread…
Do you feel more content?
I’ve gotten a haircut that I’m really unhappy with, I guess I’ll have to wait until it grows back out to fix it.
Or you 1) could shave it off, 2) get extensions, or 3) collect the cut hair and randomly glue it back on.
Or all of the above.
All of the above would be irresistible.
How about, everybody choose a specific forum member to have an irrational persecution complex against?
Is anybody not taken? I’ll just stand over here by the wall and wait for someone to ask me.
Thank you for proving my point literally one post after I predicted that conservatives would come out with their excuse for why it’s okay to use the race card even though they claim to be against that.
What I said is that she isn’t using the race card, that you’re misunderstanding/ mischaracterizing what she said.
A new addition to your cast of villains? At least it adds diversity.
I don’t see any violation of principles by her observing Kanye is black and suggesting Evans is going after Kanye because, according to her, Evans thinks Kanye isn’t abiding identity politics (ie because he’s black he must think a certain way). You can think she’s totally wrong in saying that’s what Evans is doing, but she’s obviously saying Evans is criticizing Kanye based on his race.
You have a thread seemingly open to arguments about the best time in Star Wars. (To be fair I know your question there was essentially rhetorical.)
I’m not sure what about the question was rhetorical, and my thread didn’t really have anything to do with the “fandom” or this forum. I don’t care about the concept of “fandom” and don’t personally identify with it. There’s a difference between the content and how the fans respond to it.
It was a thread about the best time in Star Wars, as I said. Or as you titled it, “Is Star Wars ‘Better Than It’s Ever Been’?” I took that in the same sense I’ve been using “Star Wars” to refer to the content and the fan response, the latter referenced several times in your initial post of that thread.
When I think of Star Wars I don’t really think of the fandom at all. The title wasn’t the best “time” in Star Wars, which would potentially imply that, but whether Star Wars is “better than ever,” which in my mind narrows it down to the content. I only talked about fans in my first post insofar as the general popularity of the series and hype pertained to my own excitement. I didn’t say anything about the community, if anything I was talking about how it’s not just an insular “community.”
From my second post in the thread
I’d say it might be if every nerd wasn’t at another’s throat 110% of the time because of it.
That’s a very good point, though I guess I was mainly thinking content-wise. Certainly the internet discourse is probably worse than it’s ever been, though I’ll say my in-person discussions have grown and they’re usually pretty pleasant, even if we’re not always entirely on the same page.
I mean if you want to talk about the “fandom” in that thread that’s fine, but I was definitely coming at it from the perspective of the content, mostly because my own experience with the “fandom” is entirely nonexistent (I have had interactions with other people who like the series of course, but have no involvement whatsoever in the fan “community,” beyond I suppose being a member here, which I wouldn’t count*), and I myself have only been alive for roughly half the saga’s life. It’s hard for me to judge what I didn’t experience, but all the content overtime can be looked at easily.
*this conversation started about the quality of discussion on this forum as whole over time, which I think is only tangentially related to the state of the “fandom” in general at best
This is somewhat tangential at this point as I was responding to one particular statement of yours. You’re straining to say you weren’t speaking about the best “time” in Star Wars. You ask in your thread, “With that out of the way, has there ever been a better time for the series?”
You say you were thinking “mainly” about content. Fair enough, but you also had a full paragraph about popularity and excitement, which goes beyond quality of content. It can be related but isn’t necessarily.
And you wrap up with, “Whatever you think of some of the movies, this is inarguably an exciting time. Is it the most exciting time?”
So even setting aside “some of the movies” you ask about excitement.
Back to your statement: “Saying ‘Star Wars fandom was in a better place before Disney’ just seems outright silly though.”
As I said, you have a thread (at least partially) related to that question.
I guess I’d be curious to know why you think Star Wars fandom is better (or the same?) since Disney.
Peterson v. Peterson
https://twitter.com/rsbukesm/status/1043644258241134593?s=21
I laughed. That’s been the inside of my head at times.
Star Wars used to be more fun.
Considering this site was made in 2003, I don’t see how that’s relevant to the discussion.
I think the griping about this forum is silly, but Star Wars fandom was in a better place before Disney. It is also silly to pretend - pretending is all the rage, especially pretend rage - that the recent movies haven’t had a deleterious impact here that the prequels didn’t really have.
When there were no new movies out, no one gave a shit. I’ll give you that, the site was much more laid back because of it. Now fans are losing their minds every year because their childhoods are ruined. So there’s a bit more tension, as there’s much less consensus on the films themselves than with the prequels (where most everyone agreed they were bad).
Saying “Star Wars fandom was in a better place before Disney” just seems outright silly though. I’d argue online discourse in general has gotten more hyperbolic and polarizing over the years, which is a much bigger factor.
We agree on your first paragraph and on increased polarization in general. Both points I made in my fashion.
You didn’t really though? At least not in the post I quoted.
I did in the post that preceded your response. You likely didn’t see it before, but it’s there since this post.
You have a thread seemingly open to arguments about the best time in Star Wars. (To be fair I know your question there was essentially rhetorical.)
I’m not sure what about the question was rhetorical, and my thread didn’t really have anything to do with the “fandom” or this forum. I don’t care about the concept of “fandom” and don’t personally identify with it. There’s a difference between the content and how the fans respond to it.
It was a thread about the best time in Star Wars, as I said. Or as you titled it, “Is Star Wars ‘Better Than It’s Ever Been’?” I took that in the same sense I’ve been using “Star Wars” to refer to the content and the fan response, the latter referenced several times in your initial post of that thread.
I’ve not slept for 3 weeks.
How can you stay away for that long?
You can’t. Tis a joke. The most any human can stay awake is about 11 days, and the effects of attempting to go this long can be life-threatening, and if it doesn’t kill you, it can cause permanent physiological damage.
Hey, you’ve read my political posts.
But seriously, sleep has been spotty for about 3 weeks. For the many times people here have defended hyperbole, taking Peterson to task for that statement is strange.
Versus looking like Gollum?
I’ve not slept for 3 weeks.
Star Wars used to be more fun.
Considering this site was made in 2003, I don’t see how that’s relevant to the discussion.
I think the griping about this forum is silly, but Star Wars fandom was in a better place before Disney. It is also silly to pretend - pretending is all the rage, especially pretend rage - that the recent movies haven’t had a deleterious impact here that the prequels didn’t really have.
When there were no new movies out, no one gave a shit. I’ll give you that, the site was much more laid back because of it. Now fans are losing their minds every year because their childhoods are ruined. So there’s a bit more tension, as there’s much less consensus on the films themselves than with the prequels (where most everyone agreed they were bad).
Saying “Star Wars fandom was in a better place before Disney” just seems outright silly though. I’d argue online discourse in general has gotten more hyperbolic and polarizing over the years, which is a much bigger factor.
We agree on your first paragraph and on increased polarization in general. Both points I made in my fashion.
You have a thread seemingly open to arguments about the best time in Star Wars. (To be fair I know your question there was essentially rhetorical.)
Why not do something about what bothers you?
If only it were as simple as some of us like them and some of us don’t. Anyway, here isn’t the place for continuing that, there are several threads for it. Basic point is that if you find this site unpleasant the effect of the new movies is one reason, if indirectly. Maybe it’s because we’re in the Trump era. I see the contagion of contentiousness everywhere. If we don’t all take responsibility for ourselves and stop blaming others, it won’t stop.
Star Wars used to be more fun.
Considering this site was made in 2003, I don’t see how that’s relevant to the discussion.
I think the griping about this forum is silly, but Star Wars fandom was in a better place before Disney. It is also silly to pretend - pretending is all the rage, especially pretend rage - that the recent movies haven’t had a deleterious impact here that the prequels didn’t really have.
Star Wars used to be more fun. Warb, the more you get worked up the more people will poke fun, albeit in relatively good humor. I think if we all joined hands and danced in a circle around you chanting “stop taking it seriously” everything would be better, don’t you? 😉
Nobody that wants him confirmed is going to want to go down that road, even if a photo turns up of him looking totally wasted.
I don’t drink, never have been a drinker, but some of my friends and classmates did incredibly dumb things where alcohol was involved back in college. My best friend had a house party, and got into one of those stupid drinking games with a couple girls he liked, and passed out. That ended the party pretty quick. You never saw a house party clear out that fast.
Nothing else happened beyond that, but it’s a miracle he didn’t die that night. He had no memory of that night afterwards. Sadly, I was the only person who was willing to tell him what happened.
I can think of instances where I or others were wrongly accused of serious, if not criminal, acts where there were no witnesses but the aggrieved parties told other people (“corroboration!”). “I didn’t do it,” will play no better in 30 years than it did then. Maybe nobody else here has ever had that happen to them or someone they know, but I’d find that remarkable. Granted most of us don’t need to worry about a nomination that spurs aggrieved people to make national news about it.
Then there are the things that did happen. Trying to defend yourself 30+ years from now based on foggy recollections of one person (perhaps accurate, perhaps exaggerated) would be extraordinarily difficult. I wasn’t a drinker in college either but I witnessed friends do things that could be construed in terrible ways if one were motivated.
I thought she first identified him in private therapy sessions in 2012?
She says she did (her husband says she did also) but the name doesn’t appear in the therapist’s notes. So we don’t have independent corroboration from 2012, only the current insistence that she did name him.
Democrats have been completely awful and untrustworthy. They wail and gnash their teeth about a further FBI background check but they fail to make any efforts, even behind closed doors, to investigate. They should have referred the matter to the FBI and the Chairman of the Committee right away. There is no excuse for that failure.
Should they make efforts behind doors to investigate? Yes.
Should they have referred the matter to the FBI and Chairman of the Committee right away? Yes.
Should the FBI be allowed to investigate now? Yes, I don’t see a good reason not to. Seems like the only excuse they can find for not allowing the FBI to investigate now is the fact that the Dems should have given to the FBI sooner. Well the question isn’t really what should have happened earlier, it’s what should happen now. I see no reason to not let the FBI investigate. If there is (other than that should have been done earlier), pleaese tell me.
The FBI would do what the Committee is responsible and able to do: follow leads and interview witnesses. The essential role of the FBI in a nomination process is to identify potential issues for Congress. I don’t know whether the FBI could subpoena witnesses who do not want to testify in this kind of situation, but the Committee can. The Democrats aim is to (at least) delay and that is what Republicans are fighting against.
But if a delay is what is needed to be able to investigate these claims thoroughly and justly, why not do it?
That is why Grassley isn’t subpoenaing witnesses. It’s why the White House isn’t asking for a halt in the process to allow the FBI to take over. There is the idea that even if Kavanaugh is innocent (as Republicans are apt to believe) then allowing a drawn-out investigation about an alleged event 36 years ago is unlikely to clear Kavanaugh. So for them it’s just a big waste of time.
I don’t see how investigating finding out more info about these claims is waste. Maybe it won’t uncover anything new or important, but maybe it will. I say in the interest of justice, do it.
The idea today was allowing the only potentially credible witness against him to say everything she wanted and to hear Kavanaugh’s denial to provide a opportunity to evaluate credibility. If there were any other solid evidence or witness to back up the claims, that would have been presented too.
Why about this other guy that was there. Shouldn’t he testify before they vote?
The FBI investigation idea does look tempting, with the hope that there is some evidence somewhere that would definitely resolve the issue one way or another. Right now that looks unlikely.
I say in the interest of justice, do it.
What about the other accusations? shouldn’t they be investigated too?
Questions lurking in the background include: why would someone with as an otherwise impeccable background have been a violent sexual maniac that one time?
It might be more than one time. There two other women accusing him of wrong doing.
If the allegation is true, how does that relate to who he has been in the 35 years since and his qualifications for the job on the Court?
If the allegation is true, he is guilty of sexual assault. In the minds of many that would automatically disqualify him. I’d be very uncomfortable having a someone guilty of sexual assault on the US Supreme Court. Maybe he has changed since then, but maybe he hasn’t. He was never brought to justice for it and this woman suffered serious mental trauma and had to have therapy. Can we really find no one more suitable? (this is all assuming the allegation is true).
You return repeatedly to the idea of justice but the FBI investigation would not be a criminal investigation and would yield no conclusion. The Senate is charged with evaluation the nominee, interviewing witnesses, and looking at evidence. If the nomination is to fail it will be in the Senate unless Trump withdraws the nomination.
Criminal charges could be pursued in Maryland, if anyone were interested in “justice” as that has been traditionally defined. Instead we have his name dragged through the mud on charges that are very difficult to disprove even if false. Until and unless Maryland pursues charges and convicts him, he is not someone guilty of sexual assault.
I only watched bits and pieces through the day, so maybe there’s information that would fill the gaps, but two statements by Ford made me wonder.
One was where she said Kavanaugh pushed her through the door and maybe Judge too except she wasn’t sure since Judge was behind her. Made me wonder how she knew for certain that Kavanaugh pushed her but not certain if Judge did, if they were both behind her.
The other was where she said something like ‘one of them’ was on top of her. Was it her testimony that both were on top of her at different points? And why could she absolutely remember Kavanaugh being on top of her but at another point only that ‘someone’ was.
Again, maybe other details help explain those lapses, but they made me wonder.
I also wonder why her friend didn’t ask her later…‘hey, you disappeared the the other night, what was that about?’ I could get her not volunteering what happened, but the fact that she ran out of the house and there was nothing asked about it (?) struck me as odd.
Memory can work in mysterious ways but the fact that she is absolutely certain that it was Kavanaugh, but little else, combined with the fact that she only maybe started telling people it was him when he was nominated raises questions.