moviefreakedmind

Thank you all for the recommendations, I’ll take them into consideration. I haven’t read Song of Ice and Fire but they’ve been on my list for quite some time. I will be adding your suggestions to my must-read list!

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Does anyone have any recommendations for an intelligently written yet extremely vulgar book? I really want to read another book filled with wicked violence, repugnant sexual deviancy, and revolting situations but that still tells a fantastic story and has some fascinating message on the human condition.

Apt Pupil

Though I imagine you’ve already read that.

I have read “Apt Pupil,” it’s the only suggestion here that I’ve read, but I’m actually not the hugest fan of it. I do appreciate that it’s one of the few non-supernatural stories revolving around an evil child but I have a lot of complaints about it, my main one being that it’s far too long given how obvious the outcome is. There’s no particularly surprising twist, so it gets tedious at its nearly 200 page length, which is real long for a novella. All in my opinion of course, for what it’s worth (which is nothing, by the way).

What if I’m a construction worker and forget to take off my toolbelt when I go on break to get lunch. Is my phillips-head screwdriver really that threatening? This is truly a case where if people want to hurt someone, they’ll do it. We can’t sacrifice daily items like kitchen knives, pocket knives, screwdrivers, etc. just because they can be used for violence. I mean, shit you could probably beat a guy to death with a Sunday New York Times if you really cared enough. (line stolen from George Carlin)

TV’s Frink said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

• Liar, Liar
• The Mask
• A Series of Unfortunate Events
• Batman: Forever
• Dumb and Dumber
• How the Grinch Stole Christmas
• Mr. Popper’s Penguins
• A Christmas Carol
• The Truman Show

Yeah, from that list, only the last is really worthwhile.

I rewatched Liar Liar recently and it does not hold up.

Tyrphanax said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/07/london-stabbings-300-extra-police-deployed-streets-tackle-spike/

Sounds like it’s all under control over there in the nanny state.

“You could be a mum or dad, big brother, big sister, a friend, a girlfriend, a boyfriend who knows somebody carrying a knife, leaving their home with a knife, involved in criminality - there’s no honour in keeping that a secret,” he said.

“You should try and prevent that person carrying a knife, leaving home with a knife.”

Insanity. “Just disarm yourselves, populace, and don’t worry: the government will keep you safe.”

Addendum:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/18/plans-to-make-delivery-of-knives-sold-online-to-private-addresses-illegal-knife-crime

Knives bought online will in future have to be collected in person, with retailers responsible for checking that all buyers are 18 or older. New powers are also proposed for the police to seize banned weapons such as zombie knives, knuckledusters and throwing stars if they are found in someone’s home, and to arrest those involved.

I can’t even wrap my head around the fact that we actually live in a world where things like this are going on. I carry a pocket knife every day because it’s useful in many situations at home or out and about or at work or really anywhere. It’s crazy to think that could be considered a criminal act in some places.

Yeah, this is all an overreaction.

SilverWook said:

The stuff I’ve read about his past is pretty icky though. (Presuming it’s true.) I don’t think he’s ever getting in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Definitely not in his lifetime. If he were associated with an important enough band then he would, like how Ike Turner got in as part of Ike and Tina Turner or Sid Vicious with the Sex Pistols, but I can’t see that happening with Nugent.

Ted Nugent, unlike most on his side of the political aisle, at least has the decency of being talented at something. I’ll give him that.

chyron8472 said:

After coming into the forum from a weekend off and reading through the past several pages…

TV’s Frink said:

What’s the point explaining something you guys either can’t or won’t understand?

Basically this, for the whole conversation about marriage and fulfillment in close long-term relationships.

Fair enough.

Handman said:

An example of cultural appropriation: https://youtu.be/SYnVYJDxu2Q

No one owns a culture. Cultural appropriation is a non-issue.

That reminds me! This clip is a reenactment of Jordan Peterson trying to talk to women:

https://youtu.be/uov9d-nqyFY?t=2m54s

TV’s Frink said:

Lol.

Is that a threat?

Does anyone have any recommendations for an intelligently written yet extremely vulgar book? I really want to read another book filled with wicked violence, repugnant sexual deviancy, and revolting situations but that still tells a fantastic story and has some fascinating message on the human condition.

Handman said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m more confused on where you got this notion that a certain age group is less likable than another.

Well, when you’re young, you’re a bit more self-righteous, a bit more prone to being loud and obnoxious. Now, not always, but generally that seems to be the case.

The old are just as self-righteous, they’re just less idealistic. And I know of a lot of older people that get just as drunk and rowdy after work as your average college student. At least young people tend to be less inhibited and less socially conservative. That’s one benefit they have in terms of likability. My position is that all genders, races, ethnicities, and ages are just spinning their wheels in the dirt as far as humanity goes.

I’m more confused on where you got this notion that a certain age group is less likable than another.

It also would depend on where you were and who you were talking to. If you’re wearing a baseball cap on Madison Avenue trying to talk to some big corporate guy then he probably won’t take you seriously. If you’re walking down mainstreet on your way to the grocery store or the barber shop, then why would people not take you seriously?

Handman said:

ray_afraid said:

I’m a fanatic of the 1960’s and I can promise you that baseball caps were normal then, especially for young people (kids-late 20’s).
They aren’t wearing em in the pics you posted because those are all ad’s for clothing and the company doesn’t make baseball caps.

I’m not talking about young people, though. I don’t like young people.

The young people in the 1960s were typically much more likable and morally forward than the older people.

They also were a lot less fascistic when it comes to art, music, and censorship than their elders.

SilverWook said:

Porgs are revealed to merely be the protrusion into our dimension of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who are actually bent on controlling the galaxy.

[Insert Species 8472 reference here]

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo post about seeing the nuance in his statements incoming.

My preemptive parody:

You can debate the merits of his condemnation of the mainstream left, but it isn’t fair to assume that Ted Nugent is inherently condoning violent actions in his call for people to murder people that disagree with them. I recall Madonna saying something vaguely violent about the White House once.

NVM

Yeah, the 1960s weren’t as formal as people seem to think, especially not the second half.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

Engaging - if one wishes to - Peterson on his own terms is the best way to argue, not falling into the “so what you’re saying is…” trap.

Engaging a piece of shit like that guy is giving him too much credit.

Even besides him being a piece of shit, there’s no reason to engage him because everything he says is pseudo-philosophical word salad that is impossible to address because it ultimately has no real meaning. It’s just babble with a bunch of buzzwords mixed in. It amazes me how the right will complain about how evil academics are because they’re usually liberal, but then the second they get some slippery academic to agree with them, they love him and tout him as the authority on all things.

I fell asleep in the Russel Crowe Robin Hood movie from ten years ago.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Conservative hero, fake philosopher, and skeezy self-help author Jordan Peterson condones sexual harassment:

https://youtu.be/blTglME9rvQ?t=7m14s

Whatever you want to make about his statement about hypocrisy, I don’t hear him say what you hear him say.

He says that women who don’t want to be sexually harassed but wear make-up to work are hypocrites. I consider that to be, at least in part, condoning sexual harassment. Imagine if I said, “Well, that person got raped, but really they shouldn’t complain about it because they wore perfume and makeup.” I bet, and hope, you’d at least think of that as rape-apologetics.

Other than this clip, I’ve only seen that one famous interview with him but I recognize his view to be very formalistic. So he can say on the one hand a woman is hypocritical to wear makeup when she doesn’t want sexual harassment in the workplace, and on the other that sexual harassment is not condoned. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

They’re not mutually exclusive in the same sense that saying someone was asking for rape isn’t condoning rape in a totally literal sense of the word. But they’re close enough.

Whether we call it literal or logical, I appreciate that you can see the distinction, even while disagreeing with it.

That said, I disagree with his formalistic view and with his particular point here about a woman being hypocritical for wearing make-up. But they’re close enough.

You “disagree” with it? That’s not enough for me. I question anyone who doesn’t find that stance to be repugnant.

As you know, we’re all different in how we consider and react. If you recognize the literal distinction he is making and that he is not condoning sexual harassment (though you think it close), then you can see how a different person might be willing to look at it in that kind of more logical way.

No, I really can’t.

Me saying, ‘I don’t see what you see in that video’ and ‘I disagree with it’ don’t merit criticisms of me. I’m someone willing to consider views, even repugnant ones, in a logical way. And I don’t do a lot of emotional reactions, offline either. There are so many reasons to not jump to conclusions about why I (or you) react certain ways.

Fair enough, I guess, but your commentary on him was very hesitant to condemn something that is obviously antiquated
and completely against free expression.

Something tells me that if I went up and pinched Jordan Peterson’s ass because his suit and tie are just so sexy, he’d probably not appreciate being told that he’s a hypocrite for finding that behavior objectionable. Why else would he wear such sexy clothes if he didn’t want me to tell him that he’s “a sexy-ass motherfuckin’ sex-hound beast” and that I want to stick my hand down his underwear? Obviously he wants me to do that, or he wouldn’t be wearing that suit. He’s totally asking for it and if he isn’t, then he’s a hypocrite. Obviously!

See, this is a great point. This came to my mind, in less lurid detail. Better than a couple of comments engaged in moral preening about some guy that nobody here cares much about.

No one here may care about him, but he has one of the biggest cults of any commentator I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. He is borderline worshipped by people on the far-right.

ZkinandBonez said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I forgot about him. He looks pretty menacing, I guess, but he looks very human. What about the more alien designs? I’m thinking like something along the lines of a Tuskan Raider or Wampa or Gamorrean Gaurd.

The Kel Dor look pretty menacing, and the design is very similar to Zuckuss from ESB. I also think that Benthic & Edrio and Moroff from RO fit pretty well in with the OT aesthetic.

I also really like the look of the Neimodians, and the Crimson Corsair, as mentioned above, is a pretty striking design.

Kel Dor reminds me a lot of an alien from season 4 of Star Trek: Voyager. It looks like it could’ve been a villain design at some point. I read that at least some of the background Jedi in the prequels used designs from Sith Lord sketches that Lucas didn’t ultimately approve, so I wonder if that’s where that one came from.

Formalistic is actually a pretty good description of Peterson’s schtick as a whole at least in terms of his religious outlook on everything, although I’d prefer to use the phrase “he has a massive stick up his ass,” but to describe his stance on this as “formalistic” is downplaying just how vile the guy is being.

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t understand why any of this matters. You liked the film or you didn’t, who cares how it got to the place it did?

I enjoy learning about the behind-the-scenes aspects of films. I particularly enjoy the drama and politics behind them.

EDIT: For clarity, I don’t mean politics like Obamacare politics, I mean the studios vs the filmmakers and how everyone worked together or didn’t work together, and that kind of thing.