pleasehello

It’s always dicey to mention homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence. They’re obviously not the same thing as one is between two consenting adults and the other is completely morally reprehensible. This almost doesn’t need saying.

But judging by the reactions, I don’t think anyone is really even willing to consider the perfectly reasonable possibility that Trident is putting forth: that these two completely different phenomena could both be the result of the physical wiring of someone’s brain.

No one is comparing the two on a moral level and it’s disappointing that we can’t talk about it in a more clinical and analytical way.

EDIT: At least I hope no one is comparing them on a moral level.

Boyhood! It took 12 years to make!

Yes, RLM’s most vocal fans are among the most annoying people on the internet (something they acknowledge quite often), but I’ve never gotten the notion that they feel any kind of contempt for people who don’t share their opinions or people who like crowd-pleasing blockbusters. They look pretty favorably on the Marvel movies and only occasionally will review slightly more artsy films. And they really only dump on universally derided movies like Adam Sandler’s recent output.

Their videos are also consistently pretty funny, so I don’t see what the problem is. I’ve never once heard them claim that one is simple-minded by mere virtue of disagreeing with their assessment of a movie. But I guess there are just some people who consider it their life’s work to try and paint everyone they find slightly annoying as pretentious, hypocritical pricks.

Cathy, I think you might have OCD based on all that shot stabilization you’re doing 😉

Within reason I actually like just a bit of camera wobble. For me it suggests that an actual human had a hand in making this movie. Sure a programmable camera rig could operate more smoothly, but where’s the art in that? Where’s the soul of the film? Not that AOTC has much soul to begin with.

Anyway, really enjoying your videos. Interesting, well made and very funny.

Jeebus said:

pleasehello said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I think centrism is awful so I say it’s awful.

Yeah. Moderation and compromise is for chumps.

When one side is in the right, compromise is just as bad as being wrong. See: climate change.

Edit: This makes it seem like I think politics is about being “right,” it isn’t. I’m on mobile so I hope my meaning is clear enough. The answer is not always in the middle.

I think it’s extremely rare that one side is right on any issue. Climate change is one of those rare examples. But generally I think the best solutions are the ones where neither extreme walks away happy. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, resulting in stalemate is far less productive than a compromise even in which one who is “right” has to make a concession.

Even if we could all agree that climate change exists and humans are the main contributing factor, I’m not confident either side’s solution to combat it would be one that best balances the interests of both the people and the environment.

moviefreakedmind said:

I think centrism is awful so I say it’s awful.

Yeah. Moderation and compromise is for chumps.

Kersh sets the record straight. All the proof I need 😉

https://youtu.be/YeB-uXGGaEU?t=1142

CatBus said:

pleasehello said:

moviefreakedmind said:

and probably put in place some kind of IQ test requirement for people running for president so that someone as stupid as Trump can’t run again.

What about an IQ test requirement to allow people to vote? I don’t think that’s the worst idea either.

Not being able to vote means not a full citizen. Where exactly do you want to draw the line, and are you sure those who implemented such a thing wouldn’t come up with a different line?

After all, this country has already experimented with intelligence tests for voting – white voters were asked to count how many fingers someone is holding up, and black voters were asked to count the bubbles on a bar of soap, thus limiting voting only to those who can count… and other factors.

I know it’s impractical and would undoubtedly create a whole bunch of unintended consequences. I just wish more voters were more informed.

Jay said:

pleasehello said:

moviefreakedmind said:

and probably put in place some kind of IQ test requirement for people running for president so that someone as stupid as Trump can’t run again.

What about an IQ test requirement to allow people to vote? I don’t think that’s the worst idea either.

Do you think that would affect the outcome of elections? Are low-IQ voters shifting the results? I’m sure there are those who think cutting out less intelligent voters would shift election results to the left, but believing you’re smart when you’re not isn’t exclusive to the right.

Besides, it’s my experience that most people overestimate their own intelligence and don’t realize a minimum IQ would exclude them. They take an “IQ test” they found on Facebook and it tells them they’re a genius, after which they like and share a post made by a Russian bot about Hillary and pizzerias or Trump and Nazis.

Not sure. I don’t think progressive or democratic voters are more intelligent than conservative voters at all. But it’s hard to deny that President Stable Genius pandered quite a bit to the uneducated contingent of conservative voters.

I don’t know if it would effect election outcomes, but hopefully it would result in voters making more informed decisions. Too many people vote with their hearts and their guts instead of their heads.

moviefreakedmind said:

and probably put in place some kind of IQ test requirement for people running for president so that someone as stupid as Trump can’t run again.

What about an IQ test requirement to allow people to vote? I don’t think that’s the worst idea either.

moviefreakedmind said:

pleasehello said:

American police officers have one of the most difficult jobs in the world and I’m not sure how they can be expected to do their jobs if they’re not allowed to protect themselves from perceived deadly threats.

Not true. It’s not even in the top ten most dangerous jobs in America:

http://time.com/5074471/most-dangerous-jobs/

I said most difficult, not most dangerous. Cops have to make split-second decisions that can make them either heroes or villains or dead. They have to balance their own safety with the safety of the public. I couldn’t do it and neither could you, but someone has to.

That cop was in no danger and he shot an underage person sixteen times needlessly. I’m tired of cops operating on a >different moral plane than us. If I had done this to someone, I’d be in jail for the rest of my life for murder. This >fucker should be too. Cops should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. If they perceive a deadly threat >where there is none, then their asses should be in prison.

So when is it okay for a police officer to shoot a suspect who’s wielding a knife? After it’s already stuck in the cop’s ribs?

moviefreakedmind said:

He’s a murderer because the kid’s arms were at his sides, he was not advancing toward the officer, and he was shot ten times after he’d already fallen. The murderer claimed that the kid was extending the knife toward him, approaching him, and trying to stand back up after being shot. All of those claims made by the murderer are lies. I would still call him a murderer if he only shot the teenager twice.

Just because he’s a liar doesn’t make him a murderer. And it doesn’t take much time to rush toward someone and raise a knife, plus McDonald was already moving, so we’ll have to disagree on that part about him being a murder even if he only shot twice.

American police officers have one of the most difficult jobs in the world and I’m not sure how they can be expected to do their jobs if they’re not allowed to protect themselves from perceived deadly threats.

Also calling McDonald a “kid” is a bit disingenuous. He was 17-years-old and posed just as much a physical threat as any legal adult.

Just to clarify, I think Van Dyke should be in jail. Whether or not it should be on a murder conviction, I can’t say.

moviefreakedmind said:

Body-cam proves officer Jason Van Dyke is a murderer:

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/10/4/17887932/jason-van-dyke-trial-laquan-mcdonald-chicago-police-shooting-jury-deliberation

Police training teaches cops to meet knife wielding suspects with deadly force. 16 shots was unquestionably excessive, but you can bet if Van Dyke hadn’t shot McDonald, one of his fellow officers would have before long if he didn’t drop the knife.

I think the 16 shots is the most damning part. If Van Dyke only shot him twice, would he still be a murderer?

skywalkerfan101 said:

Damn…it would be easier if there was an ISO file already available.

Have you tried muxing the MKV file to a Blu Ray Folder instead of an Blu Ray ISO? Then you can use ImgBurn’s write folders/files to disc function and drop in the Certificate and BDMV folders. That almost always works for me.

In your OP you said that you’ve known since you were 17 and perhaps had some hints about yourself as far back as puberty, which seems perfectly reasonable.

I was wondering what your opinion is on those rare cases you hear of much younger, prepubescent children who identify as the opposite sex (which I think is okay in and of itself), who have parents who provide them with treatments such as hormone therapy and puberty blockers, which I think could be potentially quite harmful to a child’s development. Especially if it turns out that the child changes his mind and is not trans after all.

I mean, I remember liking girls at the age of six, but a lot can change between the ages of 6 and 12.

Thanks.

snooker said:

DominicCobb said:

pleasehello said:

screams in the void said:

I wonder if some were in this very thread that seemed to come out of the woodwork , think I may have come across a few on Facebook as well …https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-last-jedi-was-targeted-by-russian-trolls-study-says-1148475

“Star Wars has always been politically left-leaning.”

If you consider anything to the left of Nazism as “politically left-leaning” then I guess this statement is true.

Well Lucas is openly left leaning, so if his biases slipped in that’s the way it’s go. And he’s on record as saying the original films were a comment on Nixon and Vietnam, amongst other things. Whether the politics actually make it through in the film is up for debate, but I think the argument that the ST is significantly more politically biased than the OT is not accurate, mostly because I don’t actually think the ST is all that political (the most commonly cited factor, a diverse cast, should not be considered a political statement in my mind).

+10000

That’s a bit excessive, don’t you think 😉

Yes, of course George Lucas is openly left-leaning, but to state so matter-of-factly that Star Wars has obviously always been that way I think is a reach. You have to look really hard to find political commentary or real-world parallels in the OT. Of course there are little things here and there in the prequels. And while I agree that casting a female lead and ethnic minorities does not really make the TFA politically progressive (which the study in question suggests), TLJ does make some very obvious (painfully so at times) social and political commentary.

All this to say that sometimes Star Wars gets political, but to say it has been from the start seems like a bit of a retcon.

screams in the void said:

I wonder if some were in this very thread that seemed to come out of the woodwork , think I may have come across a few on Facebook as well …https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-last-jedi-was-targeted-by-russian-trolls-study-says-1148475

“Star Wars has always been politically left-leaning.”

If you consider anything to the left of Nazism as “politically left-leaning” then I guess this statement is true.

moviefreakedmind said:

pleasehello said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s not even suspicion. It’s patently obvious that our draconian laws are intended to imprison as many non-violent people as possible for the profit of others.

Thanks for your two cents, Alex Jones.

All laws are a government conspiracy to create legal slave labor. Is that it?

I was actually referring to the drug laws. I should’ve been more specific. Is it really conspiratorial to say that the reason private prisons lobby for harsher drug laws is because they have a financial interest in keeping as many people in prison as possible?

No, but that’s not what you said.

Is that really on par with “Sandy Hook was a hoax!”?

My statement was an exaggeration. As was yours, it seems.

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s not even suspicion. It’s patently obvious that our draconian laws are intended to imprison as many non-violent people as possible for the profit of others.

Thanks for your two cents, Alex Jones.

All laws are a government conspiracy to create legal slave labor. Is that it?

dahmage said:

Ignoring the he-said-she-said aspect of this currently, I’m simply stunned at how ridiculously partisan Kavanaugh sounded during the hearing.

I would expect anyone being considered for the Supreme Court to be a little less partisan.

I think I understand what you’re saying and I too would hope that anyone being considered for the Supreme Court would be less partisan. The law is already written. Their job should be to interpret it as impartially and objectively as possible.

This is sadly not the case.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:
Even if he did lose some of his memory while drunk, it doesn’t prove he assaulted her.

Do you even realize how low you and the republicans have just set the bar for being a supreme court justice!? So it’s acceptable for a supreme court appointee to have had past problems with alcohol, even if they lie by denying it, and even in the presence of sworn testimony by a respected professor that said drunkenness led to sexual assault, so long as that particular assault can’t be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would hardly classify getting drunk at a high school party as having an alcohol problem.

The rest though I agree sets the bar pretty low.

moviefreakedmind said:

What would be the point? Warbler isn’t known for meaningful dialogue in this thread.

It seems to me he puts at least some thought into the things he says even if they’re somewhat outlandish.

And how do you even respond to any of those posts? They’re ridiculous.

By telling him why it’s unlikely that these women are crisis actors. I believe Trident did it just fine.
Or by ignoring the posts. Better than “Holy shit, you’re stupid!”

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

yeah, they love to play the victim, am i right?

I don’t know what your point is. We know nothing about this woman that confronted the Senator. We have no idea if she is a victim or sexual assault or not. She could be some nut. Or someone in the Dems put her up to it. Who knows.

Ahahahahaha holy shit Warbler.

Thanks for your thoughtful response and attempt to engage in meaningful dialogue. Exactly what this thread has been missing.

10/10

CatBus said:

Sounds to me like the system surprised everyone and started working today. So yay for small favors.

Sorry, I hadn’t read that most recent development. Good on Flake for at least doing something.

moviefreakedmind said:

pleasehello said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I support citizens confronting their bought-and-paid-for, fraudulent representatives.

I doubt that the lady who confronted him is from Arizona.

His votes still have the power to disrupt all of our lives.

Yeah, but he represents the overwhelmingly conservative state of Arizona. He’s more beholden to them than some lady who corners him in a elevator.

CatBus said:

Uproar, furor, pandemonium! There’s a credible accusation of a serious crime, complete with a witness and some corroborating accounts. And… an independent nonpartisan investigation is performed before anyone is convicted or vindicated!

It’s how the party of law and order does things. And also Jeff Flake, apparently. I honestly didn’t think he’d do it.

Conservatives have little to worry about. It’s like a one-week delay and it also lets Kav say he’s been cleared of wrongdoing by the FBI (assuming they do), like Hillary was able to do with her e-mails after the FBI cleared her.

That’s modern American politics. One side does whatever it can to block the other side, which does whatever it can to push their policies or candidates through. Everyone talks, no one listens. The system is broken.