I support citizens confronting their bought-and-paid-for, fraudulent representatives.
I doubt that the lady who confronted him is from Arizona.
This is insane.
Ugh, these confrontations are always so cringe-inducing.
I did laugh at the lady who said, “we demand to know what you’re thinking.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-qyAoF6jow&feature=youtu.be&t=20s
I mean her freaking GoFundMe alone is almost up to $480,000. That’s a pretty strong motive by itself.
And who knows what other secret account might also be waiting for her in some dark corner. I mean I don’t know at all if she’s telling the truth? But people have lied for a hell of a lot less.
I’m sorry, what is the purpose of this GoFundMe? She’s a doctor who lives in Palo Alto (one of the most affluent suburbs in America). I sure as hell hope the family donates this money to a good cause.
Whatever keeps this man off the Supreme Court is fine by me.
Even false sexual assault accusations?
I don’t care about getting rises out of people. I don’t see how being antagonistic is unproductive. That’s how shit gets changed. I also don’t really like “exchanging ideas” in the calm, tepid sense.
You’re never going to change someone’s mind by being antagonistic toward them. I think diplomacy and compromise are far more effective means of change. But I keep forgetting that nobody compromises anymore.
I have things to say and I’m very passionate about them and when I see things that I disagree with or that I think are uninformed or unreasonable, then I call it out.
Fine if that’s your thing. I just wouldn’t expect to make very many friends.
“In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.”
Wait, so maybe I wasn’t completely off-base. The CBA seems to take a broader interpretation of the law that I would oppose. I don’t think we need laws to protect people from being humiliated or offended. Am I reading that correctly?
“The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions. Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate. It does not target the ideas, but their mode of expression in public and the effect that this mode of expression may have.”
And I really don’t see the distinction they are trying to make here. It’s okay to express hateful views, but if a member of a protected class is exposed to those hateful views, then it’s not okay? This seems vague and confused.
But his main contribution, I think, has been helping young men take responsibility for their lives through his lectures and his book, which actually makes some use of his expertise in psychology.
I don’t understand how he’s helping young men take responsibility. I’ve read excerpts of his book where he tells his readers to cut off their friends because people that need help are usually exploiting you. He also says that our culture needs to allocate enough women to satisfy all the creepy men that are bitter that no one wants to fuck them. He blames sexual harassment at least in part on women wearing makeup to work. He says that men can’t deal with “crazy women” because they’re not allowed to use physical force against them, which he says is a prerequisite for respecting someone, which implies that you can’t fully respect women.
I haven’t read his book, but I’ve never heard him say any of the things you claim he’s written and I can’t imagine the book being as popular as it is if it did say those things. Can you provide a couple of excerpts?
I don’t even like calling him an expert because, as you pointed out, he either ignorantly or fraudulently misuses words all the time. Everyone’s a nihilist to him, or post-modernist, or a neo-Marxist, or some other term that he’s using completely dishonestly. He conflates nihilism and post-modernism all the fucking time and he seems to believe that post-modernism is inherently communistic, which is the most imbecilic take on the term I’ve ever heard. He has no understanding of recent human history. He claims that Nazism was an atheist and anti-theist doctrine, which is an abject lie, and he seems to think that the U.S.'s behavior during the Cold War was justifiable if no humanitarian, which is incredibly absurd. Those are just my problems with his dishonesty, I could write a whole book about all the problems I have with his self-help philosophy.
I do think he has some interesting insights into psychology, but the rest I agree are kind of inane ramblings.
Censorship by the university, no. I think he has a good argument against the Canadian government.
Not at all. Canadian Bill C-16 only added transgenderism and gender identity to the list of characteristics that you aren’t legally allowed to discriminate against. The same law had already been on the books in the province that Peterson lived in for years before C-16 hit the federal stage. Needless to say, nothing bad happened to Peterson. He claims that the bill is too vague and could lead to all manner of horrifying things happening to him, including people being censored for “criticizing someone’s fashion,” which is not true at all. The lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association even came out and debunked all of the claims that Peterson made about this bill. The beautiful irony is that not one time was Jordan Peterson’s freedom of speech inhibited in any way by the Canadian government or his university, and now Jordan Peterson is the one that is trying to put a stop to people’s freedom to speak out against him. He is the only character in this story that has actually taken strides to hinder free expression.
So I did some more research and I concede to you on this point. The Canadian “civil rights” code protects certain classes of people only against speech that advocates genocide, which I don’t have a problem with. I thought they had broader hate speech laws.
The book came after him pretending to be under attack by the government and his university even though all evidence pointed to the contrary.
Censorship by the university, no. I think he has a good argument against the Canadian government.
But his main contribution, I think, has been helping young men take responsibility for their lives through his lectures and his book, which actually makes some use of his expertise in psychology.
Then he inevitably comes back to censorship and Marxism and how it’s everywhere and it’s going to end the world. At which point I tune out.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that he’s a mixed bag for me.
Arch-hypocrite pseudo-intellectual Jordan Peterson sues university over comments made in private by employees of the university “in order to make academics more careful about what they say about him.”
What a litigious, hypocritical fraud. For those of you that don’t know, Jordan Peterson’s claim to fame is that he pretended that his freedom of speech was under attack, even though he was never fired, disciplined, or censored in any way by his university.
He also has a #1 bestselling book.
I thought his claim to fame was that he said his freedom of speech was under attack by the Canadian govt. bill C-16, which I kind of agree with. And then later he went on to say how all universities are post-modernist Marxist institutions, yada yada yada and all that crap.
He’s a whiny hypocrite at times, but I don’t understand why people are so vehemently opposed to him. His views don’t seem all that controversial to me.
RIP Gary Kurtz and thank you for producing one of the greatest movies ever made.
The question was never wether fan-edits were legal. They are not. So any way of distributing fan-edits, no matter if paid or for free, is technically a copyright infringement.
Technicality–making a fan edit is legal, distributing it without a license from the copyright holder is not.
Sadly, not if the blu-ray is used as a source. By removing the copy protection you have breached the DMCA.
I learned that recently making my TLJ fan edit. I think that’s complete trash. If I’ve purchased the official blu-ray, I should be able to do whatever I want with it as long as it’s for private use.
I know it’s not really an issue since it’s impossible to enforce, but I take exception on principle.
Incredibly odd thought, but maybe Ep 9 could use a CGI Recreation of Sebastian Shaw as Anakin’s force ghost, who has been trying to contact Kylo Ren but has been consistently pushed away by Snoke. Who better to tear down Vader idolization than Vader?
Or to be perfectly honest, Hayden Christensen is only 8 years younger than Anakin when he died…
If that’s true, it’s hilarious just how bad the prequels are in keeping continuity with the OT. Hayden Christiansen is 37 now, which would make Darth Vader 45 when he died. And Sebastian Shaw was in his mid-late 70s when they shot ROTJ.
But to be honest, I wouldn’t mind seeing Christiansen as Anakin Skywalker in IX. Perhaps he could be more convincing with a better director and a better script.
The Skywalker Saga is done, so hopefully they put a fork in it after IX.
And then here’s an idea that will never happen. Go back to the 70s movie model whereby Disney can produce interesting scripts from up-and-coming writer/directors on more modest budgets instead of announcing a $200MM Boba Fett movie with no script that will just become a big bloated mess.
Would you say ROTJ undermined ESB with its retcon of the “there is another” sequel hook?
I would say yes. It’s not really dealt with in a way that is satisfactory or satisfying.
“Leia’s a Skywalker. 'Nuff said.” We don’t get to see her character grow and develop her powers after the revelation that she has some in Empire. We get to see her in a gold bikini and she plays with teddy bears.
I would say that undermines her character and how it was established in Empire and hence the film itself.
I agree that Leia is underutilized in ROTJ (and that the bikini undermines her character) but I don’t think making her a Skywalker is the root of that problem. And retconning Yoda’s line doesn’t undermine all of ESB, it just reorients a one-off line. It’s far more blatant a redirect than anything people claim of TLJ, but it’s still kind of a “who cares” change, it doesn’t matter all that much in the grand scheme of the story.
I think most people’s problem with Leia being the other is more a problem of Leia being Luke’s sister, which serves to shrink the universe and make the love triangle of SW and ESB squicky. I can’t think of anything in TLJ that does anything like that at all.
I’m not going to try and argue that TLJ completely undermines TFA, because I don’t think that’s the case at all. But one such example (which is the only one I can really think of) is how TLJ picks up the final scene (the final few shots, really) of TFA.
In TFA, that final moment is treated with complete seriousness and has real gravity to it, enforced both by the score and by Mark Hamill’s small, but effective performance. TLJ unabashedly pulls the rug out from under it, treats it flippantly and plays it for a laugh, which to my mind undermines the seriousness of that scene in TFA. It also undermines Hamill’s performance in TFA. No wonder he didn’t like Johnson’s vision for Luke.
Aside from that example I wouldn’t say that TLJ undermines its predecessor. But there’s definitely a tonal dissonance between the two films. It’s not hard to spot and I think that’s part of why so many people were turned off by TLJ.
Would you say ROTJ undermined ESB with its retcon of the “there is another” sequel hook?
I would say yes. It’s not really dealt with in a way that is satisfactory or satisfying.
“Leia’s a Skywalker. 'Nuff said.” We don’t get to see her character grow and develop her powers after the revelation that she has some in Empire. We get to see her in a gold bikini and she plays with teddy bears.
I would say that undermines her character and how it was established in Empire and hence the film itself.
The Mr. Plinkett review was far less critical than I was expecting. It sounds like the more he watched and analyzed the movie, the more he found to like about it, which has been exactly my experience.
The most interesting point they made was that many of the obstacles the characters faced in the film were completely of their own making and very avoidable. Finn and Rose’s whole plan goes south because they parked their shuttle on a public beach? I find that very frustrating as a viewer and not terribly satisfying. Also there’s Poe’s loose lips leading to the destruction of all their shuttles. Kind of just general incompetence.
For that to be true, TLJ would’ve had to “undermine” TFA, which is not even remotely the case.
One could (many have) easily make the argument that TLJ undermined or at the very least disregarded a lot of what was set up in TFA. So what you say is not even remotely “not even remotely the case.”
I can’t think of a single example.
It’s plan is to make good movies. It’s worked so far.
That’s a completely subjective statement. I think their output has been a very mixed bag. Also “make good movies” isn’t a very good plan when you’re making three films that should be supporting each other as a cohesive trilogy.
I don’t see how they aren’t.
For that to be true, TLJ would’ve had to “undermine” TFA, which is not even remotely the case.
One could (many have) easily make the argument that TLJ undermined or at the very least disregarded a lot of what was set up in TFA. So what you say is not even remotely “not even remotely the case.”
It’s plan is to make good movies. It’s worked so far.
That’s a completely subjective statement. I think their output has been a very mixed bag. Also “make good movies” isn’t a very good plan when you’re making three films that should be supporting each other as a cohesive trilogy.
Surely not, as that would be comically “take turns telling a story.”
That would be comical. With each film undermining the one that came before it.
Though it wouldn’t surprise me. Lucasfilm has proved it has no plan for Star Wars.
Yes, real actress on set, face replaced digitally. Probably actual ANH dialog from Carrie herself. I have some minor issues with the CG with these two characters, but I emphasize minor. I have more of an issue with Tarkin’s voice. It was not crisp enough. Too muddled. Both faces have the same problems and it is very common for all cg humans. We notice it less with non-humans. They got the movement of the face close, but not quite and our minds pick up on that. They did a much better job with the animation of Rachel in Blade Runner 2049, but they did a crappy job of making it look like Sean Young. I thought it was a look-a-like actress when I saw the film in the theater. But no, they intended it to be Sean Young and in that respect it was bad. So at least they go the faces right in Rogue One. But have you checked out Superman in the last movie? Caville had a mustache that for some reason he couldn’t shave off and regrow and the CG work they did is horrible. He looks more fake because of his upper lip than Tarkin or Leia do, and he was virtually all real.
I can’t see how you could mistake Rachel in Blade Runner 2049 for a look-alike actress. I thought it was a very close likeness of Sean Young. Closer than Carrie Fisher in Rogue One. Though it still didn’t look real.
But again, both of these problems could have been mitigated by only showing the characters from behind. The audience already knows who they are.
This isn’t the worst thread title in the world.
One of the rules of this thread is that you can’t criticize the title of the thread.
Then I see disparaging remarks about this being a " safe space " ,I can’t see these behaviors as anything but harassment and it seems like some people are reinforcing the case that the issue indeed exists . If this is not toxicity , then I don’t know what is .
That seems a little over-the-top to me.
Discussing the purpose and purposefulness of this thread hardly qualifies as harassment or toxicity. Many are legitimately confused as to this thread’s purpose. I was at first, too. So it stands to reason that when you get newcomers to this thread you’re going to be met repeatedly with the same questions and confusion.
So wait…I was right the first time? This is a safe space thread?
No. Hush.
This is a thread where we discuss toxicity in the Star Wars fanbase, fanbases in general, and by extension society in general. What is wrong with that?
“Safe space” indeed. -.-
I would classify this as a safe-space thread that doesn’t really encourage discussion. We’re really only allowed to discuss “toxicity” as narrowly defined by the original poster, which is fine if that’s what he wants, but makes the thread pretty limited in scope.
OP: “if you are of a mind to take a stand and stick up for the aforementioned people making the movies and the people that like them that ARE being harrassed, then this is the place for it.”
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with “safe spaces”, but let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?
Suffice it to say, complaining about this thread being a “safe space” feels to me like a complaint about not being given license to be an asshat.
In luckydube’s case, possibly. But I have been disappointed by this thread in that it doesn’t let one discuss fan toxicity from any perspective save the one indicated in the OP.
So wait…I was right the first time? This is a safe space thread?
No. Hush.
This is a thread where we discuss toxicity in the Star Wars fanbase, fanbases in general, and by extension society in general. What is wrong with that?
“Safe space” indeed. -.-
I would classify this as a safe-space thread that doesn’t really encourage discussion. We’re really only allowed to discuss “toxicity” as narrowly defined by the original poster, which is fine if that’s what he wants, but makes the thread pretty limited in scope.
OP: “if you are of a mind to take a stand and stick up for the aforementioned people making the movies and the people that like them that ARE being harrassed, then this is the place for it.”
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with “safe spaces”, but let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?