moviefreakedmind

I haven’t smiled since 2004.

Dek Rollins said:

What about Johnny Cash givin’ the finger? A friend of mine where’s a shirt of that regularly and has only gotten in trouble for it once.

EDIT: I think it’s this one:

That rocks.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah, you can, and should, be able to wear anything you want to school.

Anything?

I don’t think kids should be allowed to wear a shirt displaying tentacle porn on the front and “FUCK YOU ASSHOLE SQUARES”
on the back but maybe that’s just me.

I guess obscenity can be reasonably banned, but other than that I don’t like the idea of dress codes.

I don’t even remember it. I was shocked to see it had come out in 2001 and had over 100 Rotten Tomatoes reviews for an over 50% rating. I have no recollection of it coming out, even though I knew it existed.

Yeah, you can, and should, be able to wear anything you want to school.

Nic Cage looks like a middle-aged Robert Duvall that aged prematurely.

paja said:

Oh my god, that looks like crap!

chyron8472 said:

I think maybe they were making an example of her. Like, people in the future might think twice before making racially-charged (or other such) statements at the risk of getting dozens of people fired from the project they’re involved in. Because apparently the fact that her show was doing well didn’t matter, and if they all lost their jobs, it’s on Roseanne not the producers.

They’ll probably keep the show going without her. Sara Gilbert is the one that got the revival going and she’s very influential in the TV world. There was no reason to shut down the show over one cast member’s mental breakdown.

darthrush said:

Just saw a clip of Candace Owens on Joe Rogan. He started to press her on the issue of climate change and my god is she a fraud.

Yep, she’s always been a professional victim that sells out her political opinions to the highest bidder. She used to be anti-Trump and then found an audience in the pro-Trump crowd.

Jay said:

Trident said:

I don’t know. I guess I’m just thinking being oversensitive sort of short-changes the chances to actually fix problems instead of just muffling them up.

Nobody is allowed to be remorseful anymore. Whatever you’ve done, and to whatever degree, can only be rectified by your career ending and you going away forever. And if you do apologize, you’ll only be ripped into more fiercely.

That’s why I said it was a big mistake for Samantha Bee to apologize.

People will forget this fast. Give it two weeks and Roseanne reruns will be back on the air. I also suspect they’ll just bring the show back without her. If they can continue House of Cards when their star is accused of and basically admitted to felony sex acts against underage victims, they can do it with Roseanne.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/31/media/samantha-bee-apologizes-ivanka-trump/index.html

Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a feckless cunt in response to the for some reason viral photo of Ivanka with her toddler. I don’t get the controversy over this particular photo or the controversy over this line. I do know that Bee shouldn’t have apologized. The people mad at her for saying it won’t forgive her and her supporters will just perceive it as weakness.

They should cancel her show!

I’m actually surprised every time I hear she still has a show.

She probably won’t, but they may put her on hold for a while. Again, don’t cancel the fucking show. This, unlike Roseanne, is a comment that isn’t broadly offensive but is rather just an insult to a political figure. Canceling everything over “offensive” language is a slippery slope.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/31/media/samantha-bee-apologizes-ivanka-trump/index.html

Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a feckless cunt in response to the for some reason viral photo of Ivanka with her toddler. I don’t get the controversy over this particular photo or the controversy over this line. I do know that Bee shouldn’t have apologized. The people mad at her for saying it won’t forgive her and her supporters will just perceive it as weakness.

SilverWook said:

Interesting! I never get political ads, at least not this year.

Yeah, it was tons of crap about PragerU and other stuff. I bet it’s because I watch a lot of political videos.

SilverWook said:

I don’t know why Lucasfilm seemingly has no interest in such things. They must know we’d buy it. And this isn’t an OOT situation.

They want to maintain the illusion that everything is wholesome behind the scenes.

I don’t know. I got adblock because most of the ads I saw were political propaganda.

Not really. No one can get the audience there that they could on YouTube.

It’s the market equivalent of the conservative response to federally legalizing gay marriage, which was “If you want to get married then move to a state where it’s legal.” It’s basically just giving someone the middle finger.

I also don’t like the idea that we’re all just fucked until someone else starts a competing business that is actually viable.

I never found him funny.

I never liked him.

I found out today, again from the Young Turks (a very progressive leftist outlet), that Roseanne spent almost a year in an asylum after suffering sever brain damage as a young teenager in a car crash. I can see a lot of insanity in her behavior. She goes from one extreme to the other in minutes, e.g. apologize profusely and blaming herself but then minutes later going back to conspiracies about how the Obamas were involved in cancelling her show. Just before the election she was talking about how she was a socialist and how the right were all national socialists (Nazis) and then almost immediately afterward became a Trump supporter and turned on the left. She’s very obviously crazy, and everyone knew that. She’s been the butt of a lot of jokes for years now over how crazy she is. No one with even a shred of situational awareness should be surprised by her implosion.

To me there was no discernible arc in Rogue One other than learning to work towards a cause that you don’t really much about.

Idiots pounce on Jimmy Kimmel for daring to encourage compassion for an obviously insane friend of his:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-kimmel-calls-for-compassion-in-wake-of-roseanne-barr-controversy/

To sum up the “controversy” here, Kimmel says that while what Roseanne said is despicable and indefensible, she’s obvious unwell mentally and he doesn’t think that she’s in her right mind. In response, idiots basically say that only mentally ill and unstable people that go on inoffensive rants deserve compassion.

Also, I find it really disturbing how everyone is downplaying Ambien’s side effects. We have no real proof that Roseanne was actually on Ambien when she said her bullshit on Twitter, but regardless of her Ambien can have deadly side effects but I see people treating it like it’s no different than a One-a-Day vitamin.

EDIT: And to be fair, a lot of people agreed with Kimmel.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?

I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.

Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.

The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.

I agree with your book publisher example, but imagine if there was only one book publisher with any kind of audience. That’s essentially what Youtube is, or Facebook. And book publishing is totally different. That actually requires printing copies and advertising. Youtube and Facebook and Twitter are just platforms.

Imagine if there were only one book publisher. The best thing is to go start your own publishing company. Not force that company to print what you want them to. And what do you mean by “just platforms”?

Obviously no one can start a competing Youtube at this point. Any such attempt would be delusional. I mean they’re just platforms because they’re in no way obligated to do anything other than be a platform for the videos or the speech. They’re not responsible for advertising a video or producing or printing anything like a publisher would be.

I recognize the tension between the competing values and come out in favor of free speech. That doesn’t mean a law. Certainly not one that does greater damage to free speech than it addresses.

Enforcing the 1st amendment on integral media platforms doesn’t do greater damage to free speech than it addresses. Youtube, to use that example, is a monolith that is the only real video platform available to people.

I see videos posted on here related to fan edits that use different sites.

Not sites with any kind of audience.

Mrebo said:

Anyone who cares about this video game but does not care about the lack of effective mental health laws in this country doesn’t actually give a damn about the lives of the students in these school shootings.

Phrased that way it doesn’t provide good discussion fodder, I hope you see.

If we’re talking about “unproductive” I am at discussion, how is it any more productive for you to ignore things that actually disprove your arguments, if you can even call them that. You said that Trump disavowed Roy Moore a while back and I proved you wrong yet you completely ignored it.

A person can reasonably believe the game is terrible, that there is no reasonable gun control law that will effectively stop school shootings, and care tremendously about those lives.

They’re wrong about gun control and all the data proves them wrong. Ignoring or obstructing the only thing that can actually address the problem while targeting a game no one has ever heard of proves to me that they don’t care too much about those lives, because if they did then they wouldn’t be distracting from the real issue. Just like how climate change deniers don’t really care about the environment.