I’d like to see a debate between Billy Dee Williams and Donald Glover over whether Lando is pansexual or not. Have them both crack open an ice-cold Colt 45 and go back and forth a bit.
I would watch that.
All that matters to me, is that it makes sense for Lando to be pansexual given how he acts in the other movies.
He repeatedly hits on Leia. And… that’s about it. He’s a player. In the early 80’s, that was a thing.
so were pansexuals.
also whatever
But again, it’s like if someone from the film crew said Lando’s favorite flavor of pizza was the Star Wars equivalent of hawaiian and the media kept talking about it because it’s great news for people who like pineapple on their pizza, especially when doing so is controversial.
Legends doesn’t count for shit. There’s nothing in the films that contradicts this development. So why is it an issue?
(Hint: it’s not)
As I said, it’s an issue for me because the media is crazy over it and it’s filling up my news feed. It’s just compounded by the fact that no previous canon suggested such a development. Sure, it doesn’t contradict it, but it also doesn’t imply it. Whether he is or not is not the issue really, but rather the pandering and following media craziness.
Which is why I’m bitching about it in here rather than debating the significance of it in the General forum. For myself, my opinion is who cares whether he is or not?
All that matters to me, is that it makes sense for Lando to be pansexual given how he acts in the other movies.
He repeatedly hits on Leia. And… that’s about it. He’s a player. In the early 80’s, that was a thing.
I mean, 99% of articles on the internet are not worth reading. What’s a few more?
This is true.
I’m just sick of it being all over my feed. Like if the character is, then he is. Put it in the movie or whatever. But I wish they’d stop making these claims behind the scenes, and that the media would stop going crazygonuts about it and making articles pop up everywhere.
If they put it in the movie you’d complain about him making you uncomfortable.
Perhaps.
Given that Billy Dee’s ESB character seemed to me simply a player and a hustler, and there wasn’t any further sexual subtext about him in the film either way. Nein Nunb being his copilot in ROTJ obviously had no sexual connotation whatsoever. So adding this to Solo seems like retconning the character, especially in these times.
I mean, did it ever suggest as much in any of the Legacy novels? If not, then there’s very little precedent to add it here.
I’m just sick of it being all over my feed. Like if the character is, then he is. Put it in the movie or whatever. But I wish they’d stop making these claims behind the scenes, and that the media would stop going crazygonuts about it and making articles pop up everywhere.
I’m getting really sick of this “Lando is pansexual” bullshit that keeps popping up on my Google news feed. Like, really? Does every popular franchise need to retcon characters’ sexuality behind the scenes as some ridiculous attempt at inclusiveness?
And why is this plastered all over the dang place?
I find it amazing that Republicans still try to blame movies and video games for school shootings. Remind me again of how these people are the pro-freedom of speech side?
When they try to ban them, let me know.
The argument that troubled individuals engaging in simulated violence can lead to real life violence is plausible.
There is something to be said for the effect of a poor mental diet on one’s choices.
I have amassed a combined library of 420 video games
Hehehe 420
I figured someone would make that connection.
Though actually it is higher now given that I’ve bought games since updating Backloggery (which is where I got that number from.)
I find it amazing that Republicans still try to blame movies and video games for school shootings. Remind me again of how these people are the pro-freedom of speech side?
When they try to ban them, let me know.
The argument that troubled individuals engaging in simulated violence can lead to real life violence is plausible.
There is something to be said for the effect of a poor mental diet on one’s choices.
And yet many who “engage in simluated violence” are still mentally healthy. Not to mention people in other developed countries play the same games and watch the same movies, and yet they don’t have these problems to the degree that we do.
People used to say Harry Potter promoted witchcraft, and before that it was Dungeons and Dragons. Before people attacked video games and TV for the degradation of youth, it was comic books.
People are just looking for a scapegoat. They’re not interested in helping to fix anything.
Are you going to say I have a propensity for violence in part because I have amassed a combined library of 420 video games over the course of my lifetime? Does it say something sinister about me that my preferred class in Mass Effect and Skyrim tends to be the sneaking sniper?
And before videogames, Pinball was going to lead innocent youths into a life of gambling and crime. Not sure what was the scapegoat before that because I’m not that old! 😉
And the rationale is still the same. They’re just looking for a scapegoat. They don’t give a crap about fixing anything at all.
I find it amazing that Republicans still try to blame movies and video games for school shootings. Remind me again of how these people are the pro-freedom of speech side?
When they try to ban them, let me know.
The argument that troubled individuals engaging in simulated violence can lead to real life violence is plausible.
There is something to be said for the effect of a poor mental diet on one’s choices.
And yet many who “engage in simluated violence” are still mentally healthy. Not to mention people in other developed countries play the same games and watch the same movies, and yet they don’t have these problems to the degree that we do.
People used to say Harry Potter promoted witchcraft, and before that it was Dungeons and Dragons. Before people attacked video games and TV for the degradation of youth, it was comic books.
Are you going to say I have a propensity for violence in part because I have amassed a combined library of 420 video games over the course of my lifetime? Does it say something sinister about me that my preferred class in Mass Effect and Skyrim tends to be the sneaking sniper?
I don’t even own a gun, and if I had one it would be a Sig Sauer P239 or an FN P90 purely for nerdy reasons (ie. because they feature on NCIS and Stargate SG-1, respectively.)
People are just looking for a scapegoat by blaming video games. They’re not interested in helping to fix anything.
Finishing The Lord of the Rings in audiobook format with the songs removed/replaced.
It’s amazing how much better the story is for me with Rob Inglis’ singing removed. Inglis’ renditions are grating and tiresome. I really did enjoy the story quite a bit, but I think Tolkien inserting umpteen pages of song lyrics into the plot breaks the flow and is unnecessary. It would have been better to put the lyrics in the appendix than to insert them in the story itself.
The idea that women who wear makeup are hypocrites for not wanting to be sexually harassed is misogynist, and it’s pathetic, and it’s disgusting.
Yeah, it is. Nobody should be harassed, sexually or otherwise.
But we don’t live on fantasy island.
Should you walk around Detroit in the middle of the night in a fancy suit carrying a briefcase full of cash? No. Why? You’ll get mugged. Should you get mugged? No. Do you deserve it? No. But you will, and you know why? There are terrible people in the world and no amount of bitching about it and activist movements will stop people from being terrible. Anyone with half a lick of sense knows that doing certain things are going to set off shitty people who want to do shitty things to you.
So yeah, if a woman spends three hours on makeup before work dolling herself up, wears a sexy dress and god knows what, she’s going to get attention. And she knows it.
Does she deserve negative attention? No, nobody does, but she’ll get it, and hopefully the ass-holes perpetrating it get reprimanded. But it won’t stop her getting it again in the future.
Being an asshole is gender-less but you can typically avoid attracting assholes by not walking around Detroit with a briefcase of cash.
Calling people who wear makeup “hypocrites” is a stretch and I don’t think that’s the right word to use, but I get what he’s at least trying to say.
Wow.
You can try and qualify it all you like, but you just made the “she was asking for it” defense of harassment (and assault/rape, by the way, since that’s often where this goes). Disgusting.
I disagree. There is actually an argument to be made that, while no one deserves harassment, having a blouse/dress with a plunging neckline isn’t doing the wearer any favors at avoiding it. Certain attire seems specifically designed to draw the eye in particular directions. It doesn’t mean they deserve negative attention.
And I wouldn’t place blame solely on the woman for dressing as such, but on the fashion industry and our culture for teaching women to value wearing such clothing and to accentuate certain features. Again, that doesn’t mean they deserve
it. They don’t.
JEDIT: With regard to makeup, my understanding is that the purpose of makeup is to make it appear as though the wearer isn’t using any. So I don’t really see how doing so is asking for anything.
I also tried reading Jurassic park before that but didn’t make it past 75 pages before I simply lost interest. Michael Crichton wrote that book as an impossibly boring slog. When something is actually happening and meaningful it’s super interesting and well written, and I’m excited for what’s going to happen next, but then that’s all bogged down by three pages of unnecessary technical explanations for things I don’t care about. It’s like he can’t just get to the point. It took all the fun out of what was otherwise an exremely fun read. I might pick it up again sometime and try to finish it, but I can’t see myself spending any time on it soon.
This mirrors my experience with Crichton. The Lost World and Timeline both had intriguing plots, but all the passages spent on technical details simply killed my enjoyment; I abandoned both books before I got halfway through either and haven’t picked up a Crichton novel since.
You know, I had a similar problem reading Daemon by Daniel Suarez. I loved Influx so I started reading Daemon, but the technical junk bogged down the plot too much and I quit reading it. Well, not complex technical explanations of things. […]
It just… ugh. People who are knowledgeable about a certain hobby or field don’t frequently extrapolate on the jargon. They use jargon when they’re around people who would understand, and they don’t around people who don’t. But they don’t explain the jargon if it’s not necessary to get the point across. The book Daemon kept using jargon and then explaining what it meant or a character’s opinion about it.
I ran into my old high school friend, who recommended Influx to me, and he asked me if I ever finished Daemon and Freedom™ (Freedom™ is a sequel). I told him no, and generally why, and he asked me to give Daemon a second shot.
So I am… and I still don’t like it. I’m only about a third of the way through the book, but the plot really is convoluted and the characters really do use too much unnecessary technical jargon. Unfortunately, out of respect for my friend, I’m going to finish them both anyway. =\
I’m finishing up Freedom™. In the synopsis online, it says “Here is the propulsive, shockingly plausible sequel to New York Times best seller Daemon.”
…Shockingly plausible? Really?!? Umm…no. In fact, one reason I don’t like this series is I can’t buy into the far-fetched plot. It’s supposed to take place in a modern-world very near to ours, but there are just too many things that stretch the limits of plausibility past their breaking point. Plus, too many characters use and then explain technobabbly terms when doing so is unnecessary to get the relevant point across in conversation. I, myself, already know what these words mean. They don’t need to be used when simpler language will do.
Also the series seems to be trying to sell the idea of a need to overhaul our corrupt plutocratic society, but the society it’s replaced with is bloodthirsty and vindictive. People’s lives can hinge entirely on how many upvotes or downvotes they get in the virtual space, and a mass-murdering psychopath is left unchecked for most of the story because he works for the glorified computer-logic-tree.
So no, I do not recommend.
Jordan Peterson doesn’t really have ideas. He’s intentionally vague, slippery, and convoluted in order for his followers to basically interpret his drivel in ways that are personal to them. It also helps so that when people call him out for being full of shit, he can pretend that they’re “misunderstanding” his points when in reality there are no real points at all.
First, citation needed?
Second, you say this as though the media in general doesn’t do this. Drumming up drama that likely didn’t previously exist so that they can make themselves sound justified when they complain about it.
So even if Peterson does this, which I’m not convinced he does, he certainly would not be the first, last, or only person to do this on either side of the fence. There’s an entire culture and market where people and corporations make money off of manufactured drama.
I can’t give a citation because my impression is based on literally everything I’ve ever heard him say or seen him write. I have yet to be impressed by a single sentence that this charlatan has uttered. Expose yourself to some of his work and you’ll see what I mean. His speeches are just ramblings filled with big words.
My problem really is that it would be easier to paint him as stupid if the people who report on him as being stupid weren’t themselves equal or greater in stupidity. Reporting on a report on an opinion about some of what he said is one example. Another is his interview with Cathy “So-What-You’re-Saying-Is…” Newman.
hot pus: I…I’m gr[-r-r-REAT!] comb LaToop kez gift.
Jordan Peterson doesn’t really have ideas. He’s intentionally vague, slippery, and convoluted in order for his followers to basically interpret his drivel in ways that are personal to them. It also helps so that when people call him out for being full of shit, he can pretend that they’re “misunderstanding” his points when in reality there are no real points at all.
First, citation needed?
Second, you say this as though the media in general doesn’t do this. Drumming up drama that likely didn’t previously exist so that they can make themselves sound justified when they complain about it.
So even if Peterson does this, which I’m not convinced he does, he certainly would not be the first, last, or only person to do this on either side of the fence. There’s an entire culture and market where people and corporations make money off of manufactured drama.
Right-wing cult leader Jordan Peterson demands forced mating and blames women for mass killings.
That article isn’t about Peterson; it’s about Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article about Peterson. This article is an example to me of the media feeding on itself for more news. Seriously, reading this makes me want to hear what Jordan Peterson actually said, in the full context of him saying it. Not Taylor Link’s report on Nellie Bowles’ report on her opinion about some of what he said.
“Yep.” = I agree with you and support your position. No further explanation required.
“Nope.” = I don’t agree, but won’t elaborate, because I might have to engage in logical discourse that requires more thought and effort than I’m willing to provide, and I might not come away feeling like I’ve “won”. However, I still want the attention that posting provides.
I wouldn’t come at you this hard if you hadn’t gone after chyron for similar behavior.
Speaking for myself, to an extent my faith teaches me that there is an element of understanding about faith that can not be explained through rational means, and therefore attempting to do so is somewhat futile by our own power. So if I don’t elaborate about it, one reason might be that I’m not sure it would actually improve understanding instead of merely prolonging the argument.
It comes off as “you can be gay, just don’t bother me with your gayness.” Similar to how chyron is bothered by “flamboyant men.”
I am unapologetic for this. I am allowed to be uncomfortable in certain situations, and I internalize little rebuke for it.
It’s not about being gay, it’s about uncomfortably odd behavior. They are obviously allowed to behave the way they do, but I am not obligated to feel comfortable around it.
Honestly, my being uncomfortable with certain behaviors doesn’t make me a bigot.
I have a feeling that comicbooks, like movies, video games, books, and almost everything else, aren’t anywhere near as politically subversive or progressive as people think. Typically corporate media tries not to be too progressive. I don’t know where the idea that every single media outlet is pushing progressive politics comes from.
EDIT: I know where the idea comes from, but I don’t know why anyone believes it.
but I’ve seen examples where a character’s sexuality was awkwardly inserted without much regard for its relevance to the story.
Yeah, like how my own actual gayness was awkwardly inserted without regard for its “relevance” to the lives of those around me! It’s almost like non-straight people exist on their own whether its relevant to anyone else or not.
I was thinking more about the comic where Superman and Wonder Woman have sex in such a way that causes massive earthquakes, tidal waves and volcanic eruptions; or how blatantly sexualized the female outfits are or how unrealistically their spines can bend.
It’s unfortunate the drama overshadows the actual discussion.
If the artist wants to include minority characters, transgendered characters, etc., cool. They don’t need an HR person and Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer hovering over their desk telling them who to include, though. Let the market sort it out. If gamers and comic readers don’t like the stories or characters, they won’t buy the media.
Sounds right to me.
Yep.
re: Guitars
I’ve been looking into getting an inexpensive guitar from Amazon and a copy of Rocksmith 2014 to teach myself how to play.
I was thinking about getting an Fender Squier Bullet HSS stratocaster, but when I said so in Random Thoughts, Possessed said Fender is just a name and that Sawtooth is better for the money.
Thoughts? Agree/disagree?
Why are you guys bitching at each other about whether people can bitch about whether people can bitch?
I’ve been saving up Amazon Gift Cards I’ve acquired until I have enough to buy an inexpensive guitar (a Squier Bullet stratocaster by Fender) and a copy of Rocksmith 2014 to teach myself how to play.
I don’t recommend a fender squire. Remember you pay for the name when you get a fender. […] Since you are going the Amazon route, I recommend getting a cheap Sawtooth guitar. They are the same price but a bit higher quality as you are not paying for the name.
Seriously?
That makes me feel better about having bought a left-handed Rise by Sawtooth strat from Amazon for my nephew a couple years ago. …That’s actually where my interest in a guitar starts. I bought a cheap guitar (and Rocksmith 2014) for my teenage nephew, having done some cursory research before buying it. I don’t think he ever got into it, but ever since then I’ve daydreamed now and then about having a guitar myself. I love music and have some experience with playing brass and piano.
Since it’s me buying for myself, I was considering paying (a bit) more money for a starter set than I paid for him, and again, having watched Youtube videos, heard a few people say pretty good things about the Squier Bullet.
I’ll have to think about this some more. Why specifically Sawtooth?
JEDIT: I think one reason I liked the Fender Squier is it can come HSS (two single coil pickups and a humbucker), which, from my understanding, can give a better Rock-style sound than just single coils.
Don’t cry!, I’ll tell you a joke!
Knock knock.
