moviefreakedmind

Your personality is okay. I’d date you.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Republicans vs. human rights:

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621435225/u-s-announces-its-withdrawal-from-u-n-s-human-rights-council?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180619

If that Council were useful and truly focused on Human Rights, I’d care.

The article explains why you should care.

It also comes at a poor time, given our own human rights violations.

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:
I do the same when the right is intellectually dishonest.

I’ve yet to see this happen.

Must never have happened then.

I know it didn’t happen. You refused to call out the intellectual dishonesty of Jordan Peterson, for example. When he says that lack of religion causes immorality, he’s factually incorrect to the point of potentially being an outright liar because it’s documented that the less religious a society, the lower its crime rate. That’s just one example of right wing dishonesty that’s come up in this thread that you’ve been silent on. I wouldn’t mind if you didn’t act as though you’re a neutral voice on this. You obviously, at the very least, lean right. Every person reading this thread can tell. That’s fine, I just don’t get why you want there to be a pretense of you being a centrist.

Most of the bullshit I see in this thread is left-leaning bullshit because most of the posters are left-leaning. Naturally, I sound right-leaning compared to most of you. To the far left, anything not bleeding-heart liberalism is “to the right”.

Not true. Rightwing bullshit is brought up all the time in this thread. Granted, mostly by left-leaning people that are complaining about it, but it’s still being brought up. The “far left” by the way is barely even represented in our government. To the right, everything even just in the center is socialism. The biggest lie that the right in this country has perpetuated is that Obama and the Democratic Party, which is corporate to the bone and totally bought and paid for, is leftist and socialist. It isn’t.

If you’d like to hear about my left-leaning tendencies, we can discuss healthcare and other social programs, for example.

I don’t really think those tendencies mean much, honestly, because you constantly defend an administration and the side that is diametrically opposed to those things. Saying that you are in favor of left-leaning programs while actively conflating the most embarrassing elements of the left with the left as a whole and ignoring the dangerous elements of the mainstream right doesn’t make you left-leaning. It’s like what that interviewer Dave Rubin does (or did? He may just admit to being on the right by now). He’ll claim to be liberal, then dedicate all of his commentary to condemning the left as a whole over the actions of a select few, and then defend the most egregiously extreme elements of the right in order to make them seem more legitimate and sympathetic than they are. He’ll then ask with incredulity why everyone thinks he’s on the right when he repeatedly says that he’s on the left.

I’m agnostic, so of course I don’t agree with Peterson on religion being the foundation for morality. I don’t see that as a reason to ignore his arguments that are based on social science and his experience as a clinician. However, you seem to conflate theocracy with religious society. Western society is very religious and yet has relatively low crime. It’s theocracies that tend toward violent oppression.

It has nothing to do with disagreement. Peterson is wrong and his statements are contradicted by reality. And no, I don’t conflate theocracy with religious society. Evangelical Republicans by and large want the government to teach creationism in schools, teacher-led prayer, the ten commandments in courthouses, bans on gay marriage (which is purely based on religious thinking), and many other things. Western society, with the exception of East Asia and formerly communist states (I’m not sure if Eastern Europe counts as Western society), is the most secular society in the world. Even the United States is incredibly secular in certain areas, and, the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is. That may not on its own discount his other commentary, but his dishonesty on this subject makes me doubt him on others. As for him as a social scientist, I’ve never heard anything impressive from him. Enforced monogamy and his “sort yourself out” nonsense is just that, nonsense. The idea that marriage and culturally enforced monogamy would stop insane murderous virgins is ridiculous and some of the most simple-minded “analysis” of the issue I’ve ever heard that honestly is even dumber than “toxic masculinity,” which I previously thought was the dumbest assessment of mass killings I’d ever encountered. As for him being a clinician, I’d say his association with Stefan Molyneux who is a cult-leader that encourages people to abandon their families if they disagree with them politically, and whose wife was reprimanded for clinical malpractice for doing the same thing, makes Peterson very questionable in regards to being a good clinician. I certainly wouldn’t trust him with any patients. But anyway, Peterson’s religious commentary is an example of right-wing dishonesty that is clear-cut.

I don’t defend the administration. I defend facts — as best as I can, anyway.

I’m going to need a translation here, because this is not computing with me.

I still maintain you’re conflating religious beliefs with government-mandated religion. “Secular” society doesn’t mean “not religious”. Despite climbing numbers of atheists in the overall population, western society is still overwhelmingly religious.

Not compared to the rest of the world and not when considering how people live their lives. The vast majority of Americans don’t live any kind of Christian lifestyle, even the ones that claim to care about it. Europe is incredibly secular. I have no idea how you’d think of most of the European as “overwhelmingly religious.” Unfortunately there’s a huge increase in the Islamic religion in Europe, but hopefully that will die down too as later generations secularize.

And good job trying to smear Peterson because of his “association[s]”. You should write for Vox or Vice. People’s views, and the world in general, aren’t as black and white and you’d like to believe; I can have a civil relationship with someone I don’t agree with and not believe or support the same things they do.

It’s a creepy association and I only used it to judge him as a “clinician”. Being associated with and agreeing with someone that is a genuine misogynist that thinks women are what spawn evil, a genuine racist that believes in white identity and race influencing intelligence, and a genuine cult-leader that demands that his followers and his wife’s patients abandon their families over political disagreements is all very disturbing for a so-called clinician and role model. Would you trust a surgeon if he were associated with and sympathetic to a witch doctor that uses his bare hands to pull tonsils out? I hope not. I don’t trust a “clinician” that associates with a manipulative cult-leader, but then again, I think Jordan Peterson resembles a cult-leader far more than he resembles a clinician, so we may just have to agree disagree on that Jordan Peterson asshole. While Vox generally sucks, as does Vice, I’d much rather write for them than the Daily Caller or Breitbart or Rebel Media or InfoWars. Another thing I doubt you recognize as the fact that it obviously is is that right wing “news” is far worse than left wing “news”.

Besides, claiming that everything sucks and anyone who disagrees with you can go fuck themselves (paraphrasing here) makes it difficult to take your arguments seriously.

At least I’m upfront and at least I make arguments. I’d rather deal with someone like me than someone who refuses to actually be upfront about what they believe. And I find it hard to take people seriously that don’t find this existence at least somewhat miserable. And I don’t hate everyone who disagrees with me. If I think their opinion is rationally formed then they don’t have to go fuck themselves.

Writing off huge swaths of people because they don’t hold the same values and don’t pass the purity test is why Democrats lost and are likely heading for more losses in November.

Democrats received far more votes than Republicans. Republicans win mainly because of gerrymandering and the electoral college. Trump won because he pandered to the worst in people, e.g. ignorance and hysteria. You care about facts so I’ll assume that you know all this. And I’m opposed to the Democrats too so I don’t care about them winning. I think that this country needs a purge of its oligarchy. As for huge swaths of people, huge swaths people are incredibly stupid and hold values that I find repugnant. Of course I write off what they want. They don’t know what’s best for them. What I want is better public education, welfare, and universal healthcare, among other things, all of which will help the uneducated Trump supporters of the poor red states far more than what the uneducated Trump supporters of the poor red states want. And the right-wing has its own purity tests too, which I know you’re just going to refuse to acknowledge so I won’t bother with going into that so I’ll move on. In general, you’re right that I don’t value opinions that I find irrational. Sorry, I don’t. You don’t either. I don’t like how people pretend that they’re open-minded to all ideas. I’m close-minded to ideas that I find objectionable. I’m close-minded to people whose arguments I find terrible and weak. We all are. I’m sure you’re close-minded to whatever crazy ideas the blue-haired college campus feminists have. Admit it, it makes life easier.

Republicans vs. human rights:

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621435225/u-s-announces-its-withdrawal-from-u-n-s-human-rights-council?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180619

I don’t think I need to watch it either. I really like the 1966-2005 Trek universe. I don’t even care much about the new trilogy. I do think they’re good movies, I just don’t have the drive to rewatch them like I do the old stuff.

Handman said:

If you’re under 30, it was controversial. Saddam Hussein was a big deal in the 80s, moreso in the 90s.

Uh, and in 2003.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

I miss non-angry Jay. He used to make a lot of cool posts.

I suspect what you miss is having your world view and accompanying arguments go unchallenged.

Well either that or you sound angry to me in most of the posts you’ve been making since you came back. But if it makes you feel better to suspect otherwise then that’s cool.

And since when has your world view ever gone unchallenged? Particularly by me?

Mrebo said:

Schumer opposes changing the law so as to keep families together because he says Trump could just choose to keep families together. I have no idea how Cruz’s bill would work but that’s a bad argument.

It will probably legitimize a mostly terrible immigration plan in the process, and he’s right that Trump could end this in a heartbeat. If legislation is what it takes because of our dictator’s unwillingness to act, then I agree that congress should do it.

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:
I do the same when the right is intellectually dishonest.

I’ve yet to see this happen.

Must never have happened then.

I know it didn’t happen. You refused to call out the intellectual dishonesty of Jordan Peterson, for example. When he says that lack of religion causes immorality, he’s factually incorrect to the point of potentially being an outright liar because it’s documented that the less religious a society, the lower its crime rate. That’s just one example of right wing dishonesty that’s come up in this thread that you’ve been silent on. I wouldn’t mind if you didn’t act as though you’re a neutral voice on this. You obviously, at the very least, lean right. Every person reading this thread can tell. That’s fine, I just don’t get why you want there to be a pretense of you being a centrist.

Most of the bullshit I see in this thread is left-leaning bullshit because most of the posters are left-leaning. Naturally, I sound right-leaning compared to most of you. To the far left, anything not bleeding-heart liberalism is “to the right”.

Not true. Rightwing bullshit is brought up all the time in this thread. Granted, mostly by left-leaning people that are complaining about it, but it’s still being brought up. The “far left” by the way is barely even represented in our government. To the right, everything even just in the center is socialism. The biggest lie that the right in this country has perpetuated is that Obama and the Democratic Party, which is corporate to the bone and totally bought and paid for, is leftist and socialist. It isn’t.

If you’d like to hear about my left-leaning tendencies, we can discuss healthcare and other social programs, for example.

I don’t really think those tendencies mean much, honestly, because you constantly defend an administration and the side that is diametrically opposed to those things. Saying that you are in favor of left-leaning programs while actively conflating the most embarrassing elements of the left with the left as a whole and ignoring the dangerous elements of the mainstream right doesn’t make you left-leaning. It’s like what that interviewer Dave Rubin does (or did? He may just admit to being on the right by now). He’ll claim to be liberal, then dedicate all of his commentary to condemning the left as a whole over the actions of a select few, and then defend the most egregiously extreme elements of the right in order to make them seem more legitimate and sympathetic than they are. He’ll then ask with incredulity why everyone thinks he’s on the right when he repeatedly says that he’s on the left.

I’m agnostic, so of course I don’t agree with Peterson on religion being the foundation for morality. I don’t see that as a reason to ignore his arguments that are based on social science and his experience as a clinician. However, you seem to conflate theocracy with religious society. Western society is very religious and yet has relatively low crime. It’s theocracies that tend toward violent oppression.

It has nothing to do with disagreement. Peterson is wrong and his statements are contradicted by reality. And no, I don’t conflate theocracy with religious society. Evangelical Republicans by and large want the government to teach creationism in schools, teacher-led prayer, the ten commandments in courthouses, bans on gay marriage (which is purely based on religious thinking), and many other things. Western society, with the exception of East Asia and formerly communist states (I’m not sure if Eastern Europe counts as Western society), is the most secular society in the world. Even the United States is incredibly secular in certain areas, and, the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is. That may not on its own discount his other commentary, but his dishonesty on this subject makes me doubt him on others. As for him as a social scientist, I’ve never heard anything impressive from him. Enforced monogamy and his “sort yourself out” nonsense is just that, nonsense. The idea that marriage and culturally enforced monogamy would stop insane murderous virgins is ridiculous and some of the most simple-minded “analysis” of the issue I’ve ever heard that honestly is even dumber than “toxic masculinity,” which I previously thought was the dumbest assessment of mass killings I’d ever encountered. As for him being a clinician, I’d say his association with Stefan Molyneux who is a cult-leader that encourages people to abandon their families if they disagree with them politically, and whose wife was reprimanded for clinical malpractice for doing the same thing, makes Peterson very questionable in regards to being a good clinician. I certainly wouldn’t trust him with any patients. But anyway, Peterson’s religious commentary is an example of right-wing dishonesty that is clear-cut.

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:
I do the same when the right is intellectually dishonest.

I’ve yet to see this happen.

Must never have happened then.

I know it didn’t happen. You refused to call out the intellectual dishonesty of Jordan Peterson, for example. When he says that lack of religion causes immorality, he’s factually incorrect to the point of potentially being an outright liar because it’s documented that the less religious a society, the lower its crime rate. That’s just one example of right wing dishonesty that’s come up in this thread that you’ve been silent on. I wouldn’t mind if you didn’t act as though you’re a neutral voice on this. You obviously, at the very least, lean right. Every person reading this thread can tell. That’s fine, I just don’t get why you want there to be a pretense of you being a centrist.

EDIT: In fact, every time something horrible done by the right comes up, you redirect to things that people on the left have supposedly done in the past.

Me neither.

Jay said:
I do the same when the right is intellectually dishonest.

I’ve yet to see this happen.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

And here we are again with the ‘Trump is just like everybody else’

Please don’t take my posts that, because I don’t believe Trump is like everybody else. Not everybody else talks with pride about “grabbing women by the p____”.

Oh yeah, that’s another thing that’s incredible. The puritanical voters on the right, that claim to hate sexual immorality, had no problem with a pussy-grabbing President that does not care about consent.

I think the bible verse justification for the Nazi-like treatment of illegal immigrants is ultimately great because it exposes Republicans and their Christian allies for being totally amoral. The “moral majority” as they call themselves is actually an immoral minority and I’m glad the general populace is waking up to how disgusting these people that hide behind Christ and God actually are. If hell were real, these people would undoubtedly rot in its fiery depths once they die.

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Christ on a cross. . .

Why do some people say “Jesus H. Christ” or “Christ on a crutch”?
What is the “H” supposed to stand for, and why a crutch?

I never understood why people say that.

I don’t know. I didn’t say either of those things so I don’t really have any insight.

TV’s Frink said:

And yet a majority of Republicans (based on recent polling IIRC) still support it. God Bless America.

Most Republicans would support a fascist theocracy if it were an option. I’m just telling it like it is, facts don’t care about your feelings, or whatever it is they say these days.

Trump hates political expression and the first amendment. Almost as much as he apparently hates the national anthem because he forgot its words.

TV’s Frink said:

Smart move. The only people that are worse than the people here are the people everywhere else on the internet.

Internet? Since when are horrible people limited to the internet?

It was all in Latin back then so no one outside of the church, essentially, could even know about the hypocrisy.

Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. In fact, I honestly wouldn’t hold it against them at all if they didn’t. I don’t hold the OT or NT to be sacred so I don’t care, it’s the hypocrisy that bothers me.

To be fair, the Christian bible didn’t really get officially set in stone for hundreds of years after the events supposedly happened, so it isn’t surprising that different churches have different selections. If Catholicism didn’t recognize the New Testament books that contradict its practices then I wouldn’t hold it against it as much.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

How did we get into a video game discussion in the politics thread?

Anyway, I think there should be some WWII games that do it accurately and some that do imaginary WWII stuff.

MFM’s problem is the ones inbetween. The ones that are just kinda sorta maybe somewhat accurate.

I don’t agree though that adherence to historical accuracy need be binary. I do agree that people are stupid, and that corporations market to stupid people because stupid people have money, but it’s the stupid people who are ruining society not the entertainment made for them.

It’s cyclical since the video game market apparently has shifted to desire ahistorical crap so obviously the entertainment will reflect that, but I blame the entertainment too. I think it’s done in this case for PC points. The reception to the trailer was largely negative.

My point is, if you want to make a game about a weird awesome lady with a cybernetic arm and blue face paint that fights Nazis, then make an Inglourious Basterds type game that throws historical accuracy out the window. That would be great and I’d probably buy it, but don’t do a WWII setting that’s just faithful enough to the time period to make it somewhat grounded in reality and then add shit that makes it totally ahistorical. It’s stupid. It’s lazy.

It’s a fucking fictional game. Get over yourself. Why does it have to be one thing or the other? Why can’t it just be?

You seem to not understand how I view things. If I don’t like something, then everyone who likes that thing can go fuck themselves. If I like something, then everyone who doesn’t like it can go fuck themselves. In my world, I’m the arbiter of what’s good and what’s bad. Everyone else feels this way, but I at least have the decency to just admit it and not pretend otherwise. If that bothers you then don’t worry, I’m sure I’ll be dead soon anyway.

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The reception to the trailer was largely negative.

The reception was negative because actually-it’s-about-ethics-in-games-journalism (see also: misogyny in gaming culture). I would say there are women in the game because there are women gamers who want to play as women.

I don’t believe that’s the case. There are a lot of misogynists, but I doubt that’s why the reaction to the game is poor. I hate the trailer because it’s an embarrassing pile of crap that seems to point towards the game being wasted potential. If women want women in the game, then make it realistic and have it make sense. There were women in old WWII games also. Women did fight in WWII after all, it makes sense for them to be there in the right context. It doesn’t make sense for Braveheart women with blue face paint and bionic arms to be fucking around doing stupid shit. As for gaming culture, it’s just like every single other culture. It’s full of fucking stupid people, just like everything else. Stupid piles of shit are every fucking where. They’re not going anywhere. I don’t get why motherfuckers think that we’re ever going to be without stupid people. Stupid people outnumber us and are never going to stop plaguing this world. The trailer sucks. Deep down, everyone knows it. I’m right. They’re wrong. Fuck this.

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

How did we get into a video game discussion in the politics thread?

Anyway, I think there should be some WWII games that do it accurately and some that do imaginary WWII stuff.

MFM’s problem is the ones inbetween. The ones that are just kinda sorta maybe somewhat accurate.

I don’t agree though that adherence to historical accuracy need be binary. I do agree that people are stupid, and that corporations market to stupid people because stupid people have money, but it’s the stupid people who are ruining society not the entertainment made for them.

It’s cyclical since the video game market apparently has shifted to desire ahistorical crap so obviously the entertainment will reflect that, but I blame the entertainment too. I think it’s done in this case for PC points. The reception to the trailer was largely negative.

My point is, if you want to make a game about a weird awesome lady with a cybernetic arm and blue face paint that fights Nazis, then make an Inglourious Basterds type game that throws historical accuracy out the window. That would be great and I’d probably buy it, but don’t do a WWII setting that’s just faithful enough to the time period to make it somewhat grounded in reality and then add shit that makes it totally ahistorical. It’s stupid. It’s lazy.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

From the “Going away? Post so here!” Thread.

Possessed said:

Probably realized a ton of the stuff they do outright contradicted the scripture that already existed so they had to make their own.

You really shouldn’t talk about something of which you really have no knowledge of the history of how it came to be.

He’s right, though. Evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, and Mormonism are essentially three different religions. Honestly, Islam has more in common with biblical Christianity than Mormonism does. They’re three very different ideologies.

There are differences between the three, but there is much in common. But that is not what I was talking about.

Very superficial things. There’re similar characters, but even then it’s mostly in name only. The Catholic Mary is a totally different character than the Evangelical Mary. Same thing with the Mormon and biblical Jesus.

I could make a huge list of all the biblical verses and things that the Catholic church violates, but since no one will be interested by that I won’t waste my time.

You and Ricolie_2 and go back and forth if you wish on how much that Catholic does or not does not violate verses in the Bible. I wasn’t talking about that either.

Possessed mentioned some contradictions that I would’ve brought up, but the apologetics are the same now as they were in the past so I can predict how the conversation would go.

And what history of Catholicism are you so familiar with that makes you more of an authority than he is?

I am not an expert by any means on the history of Catholicism.

What was talking about was how it came to be that there were books in the Catholic version of the Bible that are not in the Protestant version of the Bible. I am pretty those extra books didn’t get added in for the sole purpose of making the Bible fit more with the way the Catholic Church is today or the way it was at the time the Catholic Bible was made the official Bible of the Catholic Church.

Oh okay, I thought you were talking more broadly.

Warbler said:

How did we get into a video game discussion in the politics thread?

Anyway, I think there should be some WWII games that do it accurately and some that do imaginary WWII stuff.

Exactly.