Sign In

moviefreakedmind

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
22-Jul-2014
Last activity
17-Jul-2018
Posts
10813

Post History

Post
#1226328
Topic
Has Star Wars finally "jumped the shark"?
Time

DominicCobb said:

Anyone who thinks that Star Wars has only now in 2018 “jumped the shark” has selective memory loss, and is forgetting the years 1999 and 2002 when Jar Jar Binks and a flippy jumpy Yoda graced out eyeballs, respectively. There’s honestly nothing at all in the new Disney movies that fits the phrase, especially as they hew much closer to the more grounded and believable nature of the original films. Just because you don’t like a scene or a film doesn’t make it a “jump the shark” moment.

I don’t think you’re going back far enough. Death Star II, Luke and Leia being siblings, and the Ewoks could arguably be considered “jump the shark” moments.

Post
#1226257
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mrebo said:

Freedom means that people are going to be intolerant.

What do you honestly care about freedom? You see no problem with the sitting American president allowing one of the world’s most oppressive dictators to meddle in our elections. Do not, for one second, act as though you care at all about American freedoms.

I don’t see much reason to respond to your post beyond this since it doesn’t even have anything to do with what we’re talking about. We’re talking about discrimination, not intolerance, which are separate issues.

Post
#1226255
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mrebo said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index.html

Thoughts:

Conservatives got mad at Obama for blaming America and being overly conciliatory to hostile nations (including Russia), so this reverse is darkly amusing.

Oh my God. Is that really how you’re interpreting this? People aren’t mad at Trump for being conciliatory to Russia. They’re mad at him for being treasonous! Even if you disagree with that assessment, don’t fucking lie about why they’re mad at him!

Do we want more Cold War?

Do we want an illegitimate president? Trump has been alienating all of our allies since he took office so why do you suddenly care about diplomatic relations?

If the Republican Congress had any principles or any love for this country then they would immediately impeach this treacherous bastard.

Post
#1226096
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

here we go again.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/15/coupon-dispute-prompts-white-cvs-manager-to-call-police-on-black-woman-report.html

I don’t know the full story, but either it is more than a black woman trying to use a coupon, or that manager has some sort of mental or physical disability. You don’t get shaken that visibly just from black woman trying to use a coupon, even if you are racist. Also if you list to the audio you can here a siren going off, why?

The local news my area already compared it to the incident of the two black men being arrested at Star Bucks.

I may or may not address more about this later, but I do with to address this:

People are way too eager to call police in this country.

While on the phone with police, Matson describes Hudson as “African-American,” to which she responds, “Black. No, I’m not African-American, I’m black. Black isn’t a bad word.”

Dear Ms. Hudson,

It may shock you realize this, but white people are not mind readers. They can’t tell before hand whether you prefer the term black or African American or whatever. You know for a fact that some people of your race consider African American and not black as the proper term. How this guy supposed to know which term you prefer(and I don’t think he should have to ask you when he is calling the cops on you). You may wish to ask why he has to refer to your race at all, well like it or not, your race is part of your description and one thing police are going ask when you call them is what the person you are calling about looks like. It frustrates and angers me that something so obvious needs to be explained. But I guess it does.

Well, when you’ve done nothing wrong and someone calls the police to say that there’s an unwanted African American in the building, you probably tend to get insulted and angry. I know I would. She’s braver than I am though because I’d have ran away immediately when the cops were called. The men and women in blue tend to have a nasty habit of brutally beating or murdering people.

Post
#1226095
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

chyron8472 said:
JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

Who the fuck said anything about that?

Yeah. I have no idea where that came from. I think it’s a way of backpedaling the call for people to “respect” discriminatory fundamentalists, which I think is an unjustifiable stance.

I think people should strive to be polite. Some Many MANY people are asshats just because, regardless of whether it might be called for.

Sure. Don’t respect them either.

In general, I think respect and general politeness is a laudable goal. I understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but I don’t, for myself, think stomping around and making a scene is the proper way to get someone offering you a service to give you what you want.

That isn’t even what happened. You’re conflating lawsuits and protests with literally standing in an establishment and screaming like a psychopath. I don’t understand this.

Post
#1226009
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

flametitan said:

chyron8472 said:
JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

Who the fuck said anything about that?

Yeah. I have no idea where that came from. I think it’s a way of backpedaling the call for people to “respect” discriminatory fundamentalists, which I think is an unjustifiable stance.

Post
#1226008
Topic
The Something Political Thread (Was: Random Political Thoughts)
Time

Handman said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Handman said:

I’m not really convinced that simply going along with the norm of the era in regards to social issues is enough to ignore the many areas in which he excelled. I’m inclined to say Wilson is among the best presidents this nation has ever had.

My point was that he went beyond the norm of the era in racism and oppressive policies against political dissidents.

Again, I’m not too sure, considering the KKK was at the height of its power in the 1920s. Now, that’s no excuse, but I just don’t think it was a great time for blacks regardless.

He did. Compare him to other voices in the Progressive Era and post-Reconstruction presidents and he’s definitely beyond the norm of the era. He inarguably violated the first amendment more than any recent predecessor successor.

Post
#1226007
Topic
The Something Political Thread (Was: Random Political Thoughts)
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I mentioned it earlier in this thread and I got to thinking about it, and I just simply do not get what the supposed problem is with cultural appropriation. I think our society needs to evolve past cultural identity and dividing people based on culture and what better way to do that than to adopt positive aspects of certain cultures while disregarding the rest of them?

Who are these fuckers making these complaints, anyway? Liberals & progressives? I thought liberals & progressives embraced multiculturalism. That’s exactly what “cultural appropriation” is.

Yeah, it’s liberals and progressives. I don’t understand it. It seems totally retrograde to claim that cultures belong only to specific races. I don’t believe anyone is entitled to exclusive access to a certain culture. No one has any right to police what you or I or anyone else decides to take from other cultures.

Post
#1225980
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Why should the person denied service be expected to respect that service’s choice?

Because life is too short; there are likely other choices; and being respectful in general toward others should be the ideal.

It shouldn’t be. I think that respecting bad and irrational opinions has held America and the world back for way too long.

One should be indignant, sure, but throwing a hissy fit just makes them look like a child and accomplishes nothing. And you don’t want to give someone incentive to pee in the soup you asked them to make (a la Fight Club).

I don’t know how you define “hissy fit”. I guess Sarah Huckabee Sanders threw a hissy fit over getting kicked out of a restaurant, but what gay people have been throwing hissy fits in the middle of bakeries? Is suing them the equivalent of throwing a hissy fit? And why did you ignore the rest of my post? I thought it pretty well-reasoned. And throwing a “fit,” to use your language, actually accomplishes a lot. Vocal complaining has led to a lot of both great and terrible things in the world throughout the years.

JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

That isn’t even something that I’m aware of as being an issue. I don’t condone screaming in the face of some person in the lobby of an establishment, but that wasn’t what we were discussing at all so it didn’t really occur to me.

Post
#1225978
Topic
The Something Political Thread (Was: Random Political Thoughts)
Time

I mentioned it earlier in this thread and I got to thinking about it, and I just simply do not get what the supposed problem is with cultural appropriation. I think our society needs to evolve past cultural identity and dividing people based on culture and what better way to do that than to adopt positive aspects of certain cultures while disregarding the rest of them?

Post
#1225965
Topic
The Something Political Thread (Was: Random Political Thoughts)
Time

Handman said:

I’m not really convinced that simply going along with the norm of the era in regards to social issues is enough to ignore the many areas in which he excelled. I’m inclined to say Wilson is among the best presidents this nation has ever had.

My point was that he went beyond the norm of the era in racism and oppressive policies against political dissidents.

That picture is brilliant, paja.

Post
#1225952
Topic
The Something Political Thread (Was: Random Political Thoughts)
Time

Handman said:

I guess the issue I have with it is, it doesn’t really mean anything. I’ll hear it used, unironically, in such a way as, “This 80s movie is problematic because it is an 80s movie” or “This person who lived decades before the Civil Rights Movement is problematic because they had racist views compared to now”. And all I can say is, yeah, no shit? I have no idea what anyone is trying to accomplish with it.

Basically, what mfm said.

Woodrow Wilson actually was the most racist president since Reconstruction. The first movie ever shown in the White House was Birth of a Nation, which has I think has at least two or three quotes from Wilson in it. He kept the military and the government as segregated as possible. He promoted the idea that the southern Confederacy was a noble cause and effort. He did a lot of great things as president too, and he was ahead of his times in some respects like the League of Nations, but black people have reason to find him “problematic.” In fact, I think problematic is the best word for him. He’s not evil. He did great things, and he did very bad things, including trampling the first amendment and keeping political prisoners and instituting racist policies that further omitted black America from the Progressive movement. I don’t think it’s appropriate to wipe him from the history of Princeton, the college he was the president of or to act as though he didn’t shape the way America is today.

Post
#1225827
Topic
The Something Political Thread (Was: Random Political Thoughts)
Time

It got annoying because people use it to vaguely condemn things that actually aren’t problematic. “You know, cultural appropriation is really problematic,” or “This historical figure from three centuries ago is really problematic,” or “This movie is really problematic.” It’s impossible those statements seriously. I still use the word when it applies though. I don’t like to let obnoxious or stupid people affect the words I use.

Post
#1225772
Topic
General Star Wars Random Thoughts Thread
Time

SilverWook said:

moviefreakedmind said:

oojason said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s fascinating and tragic how people have been victimized by the Star Wars fandom. Kelly Marie, Ahmed Best, and Jake Lloyd have all been crucified by obsessed and mean-spirited fans.

Rian Johnson too - similar abuse to what the above have endured - including death threats and announcements of his death too. JJ Abrams received a quite a bit of abuse too if I recall. Kathleen Kennedy as well.

That’s right, and hell, George has gotten a lot of horrible stuff like that too for longer than any of them have. The list goes on and on and I think the list will just keep getting longer, unfortunately.

Is there evidence Lucas was threatened publicly? The only specific creepy thing I remember was that one forum member a decade ago who was always going on about how he wanted to bury George with a shovel. That guy was disturbing as heck.

I don’t know. I just know he’s gotten the same abuse directed toward him that people like Jake Lloyd and Kelly Marie Tran and Ahmed Best have gotten.

Post
#1225754
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

flame,

Of course it’s a flame. When people condemn someone for an immutable characteristic, they tend to get flamed. What’s wrong with flaming something that is terrible?

Can’t tell if joking.

No, I’m not. I don’t think that certain opinions are worthy of respect, and those views should be attacked with vitriol.

I think that most people’s religions are repugnant and immoral, but you don’t see me out and about preaching that they’re morally bankrupt and hellbound and bane of the country. You don’t see me out discriminating against people. Why can’t they abstain from that shit too? Whenever someone’s religion starts affecting innocent people, then it’s the religious person that needs to change. Society and everyone in it shouldn’t have to regress in order to wait for all these fundamentalists to catch up with the Civil Rights Act.

Well as I said before, it’s because people disagree. People hold fundamentally different views than you and are equally convinced that they are right.

Of course. I know that, I’m saying that I do not care one little tiny bit about religious people’s “right” to discriminate. The right to discriminate and refuse service to people because of immutable characteristics is not a right that I value.

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

Parents can do whatever they want, but a third-party private adoption service can’t discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics if they have state contracts.

Then those religious organizations may opt to not be involved in adoptions. I don’t know enough about the landscape of the foster system and adoption but I gather it’s not in a great place as it is.

It’s horrible, and keeping kids in that system in order to wait for parents that are less gay to adopt them is repugnant.

Post
#1225744
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2018/7/11/republicans-vote-license-discriminate-against-lgbt-parents

God Dammit America.

I want to actually read the amendment to the referenced bill, because I want to approach this with a balanced opinion, but this article doesn’t cite it. The article doesn’t at all say what bill it was.

Now, because I live in Oklahoma, I clicked on the link in the article that mentioned Oklahoma passing a law that “let welfare agencies discriminate against same-sex couples who want to foster or adopt children.” The linked-to article then immediately starts out with “Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has signed into law a bill allowing faith-based adoption and foster care agencies, even those with state contracts, to turn away prospective parents who pose a conflict with their religious beliefs.”

and… Yes? So? They’re faith-based organizations who hold to certain beliefs, and they want to be selective with regard to parents based on certain principles they hold to.

Well okay then. Moving on.

Then they shouldn’t get state contracts.

Do they? Maybe they shouldn’t.

They do, and they shouldn’t.

flametitan said:

Why should I be denied the right to adopt, the right to be a parent, because of something that doesn’t interfere with them?

You shouldn’t, if it doesn’t, but they think it does.

Honestly, I have really no tolerance for people’s senseless bigotry. I don’t respect anyone’s beliefs that involve condemning the totally innocent lifestyles of others. People that hold those beliefs need to modernize and get with times of the century that they’re living in. If they have a problem with providing a service to people, then they shouldn’t even be in that business. If you’re adopting kids out not because you want those kids to have homes but because you want to put them in homes that you see as compliant with your religious lifestyle then you need to step aside and let someone with a respectable moral compass takeover.

For myself, were I in the position, I would not deny you. But I can see the position of people in these organizations who perceive homosexuality as a harmful lifestyle choice. People often compare it to racism, but I don’t really agree with that comparison. As though all discriminatory activity, or selectivity, is created equal.

This is totally cold comfort. Imagine if I said that I wanted people to be able to discriminate against Christians, and you lived in a shithole that was full of people that didn’t want to serve you because of your religion, and I said, “Well, I personally would never discriminate against you. If I, mfm, were serving you then I wouldn’t discriminate, but I think everyone that wants to should! And you should respect that! You should respect the daycare that doesn’t want to take care of your kid because of your religious differences. You should respect the real-estate agents that won’t sell your property because they are uncomfortable working with you. You should respect the restaurants and bakers that won’t serve you.” What if a Mormon adoption service wouldn’t give kids to black parents or interracial couples back when that Church was super racist? How is that different? It would still have been their shitty religious belief. What if a Muslim agency was refusing to give any orphans or unwanted kids to people that they deemed infidels or apostates? They’re totally allowed to hold those backwards beliefs, but are they allowed to discriminate against people and disrupt their lives because of their shitty beliefs? No! They shouldn’t be anyway.

I do agree that love is love; that people who judge do so out of ignorance of the facts and of the teachings of their own faith; and that even if homosexuality is a sin, it is no more sinful than a myriad of other things people do on a daily basis. And I agree that government support should be called into question.

Called into question? Government support should be revoked immediately. It’s a violation of the separation of church and state for the government to work with discriminatory religious services.

But I don’t believe a baker should be required to bake a wedding cake for someone if he doesn’t want to do it. Doesn’t matter why he doesn’t want to, but if he doesn’t then he shouldn’t have to. If he faces public backlash for it then so be it. He could face backlash for baking bad cake as easily as baking no cake. JEDIT: At the same time, I think respect should also be a thing. The person providing said service should be able to respectfully decline, and the person denied the service should respect their choice. Either party getting pissy about it is juvenile.

I really hate this line of thinking. Why should the person denied service be expected to respect that service’s choice? I don’t believe that anyone should respect the asshole that wants to discriminate against them. Should all those black people have respected the diners that respectfully told them they didn’t want them their? The cook at that diner really didn’t want black people there, and it’s his business! What if, instead of a wedding cake, it was some Christian that didn’t want any same-sex couples staying in his hotel? Where do you draw the line? If someone fucks me or you over because of their bullshit philosophy, then we should get pissy about it! The gay people getting angry over being denied service are not the equivalent of the Christian getting backlash over denying them service. Just like the Civil Rights Movement was not juvenile for fighting back against the racist assholes that were denying black people services.

Mrebo said:

flame,

Of course it’s a flame. When people condemn someone for an immutable characteristic, they tend to get flamed. What’s wrong with flaming something that is terrible? I think that most people’s religions are repugnant and immoral, but you don’t see me out and about preaching that they’re morally bankrupt and hellbound and bane of the country. You don’t see me out discriminating against people. Why can’t they abstain from that shit too? Whenever someone’s religion starts affecting innocent people, then it’s the religious person that needs to change. Society and everyone in it shouldn’t have to regress in order to wait for all these fundamentalists to catch up with the Civil Rights Act.

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

Parents can do whatever they want, but a third-party private adoption service can’t discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics if they have state contracts.