Much like US domestic politics.
Much like US politics, there’s a wiiiiide spectrum of awful with clear good guys and bad guys in a relative sense without a viable alternative.
Much like US domestic politics.
Much like US politics, there’s a wiiiiide spectrum of awful with clear good guys and bad guys in a relative sense without a viable alternative.
It’s OK - we all have off days.
This was obviously Russian fuckery, but looking at any coup globally since WWII, the odds of CIA involvement are pretty goddamn high.
…now that I sound like I belong in hexbear, I’ll see myself out.
Saying they’re black or gay when it has no bearing on the story doesn’t tell anyone much. You didn’t choose to say they were loving, outdoorsy, not super-physical, middle-aged, wealthy, blonde, family-oriented… Noone is coming out to crucify me here - talking about race isn’t taboo - but the non-relevant aspects of the relationship you choose to highlight for reasons tells plenty about you.
I think this is a good take, but my criticism of Disney is more in line with my perception of their business model - art by focus group.
They know that if they combine these 3 IP’s with these 3 diversity checkboxes, the movie will return x, meaning they have a budget of y to deliver a given ROI. Much like their endless parade of remakes, it’s cynical commercislism that has no interest in storytelling artistic value, or representation - and it shows.
To your point, TLOU separated the relationship from the community, and while the community representation is important, this type of representation is critical to normalising homosexual relationships - “oh - they’re in a regular loving relationship just like me - it’s not all disco music and flapping about in sparkly clothes, making catty comments.” kinda deal.
If they were black, it would similarly be a black love story - but what do you think choosing to describe it as a black love story indicates?
There’s a million different lenses to look through when describing a story or a relationship - the aspects we choose to point to (particularly unprompted, as was the case for the trolls) tend to indicate more about us than the story - particularly when they have no meaningful bearing on the story.
I’m impressed by pretty much everything I see from Offerman, and his role in TLOU was fantastic. It had real impact, and didn’t feel at all like the lazy tokenistic drivel that’s become Disney’s standard fare.
The GOP refusing is only the next step in the chain - Biden backed down for fear of being uncivil and creating a constitutional crisis - he doesn’t have to do that.
If you’re going to be too afraid to act because the GOP are pulling some bad-faith bullshit, you’re not going to get anything done. They respect displays of strength - give 'em one.
What are you talking about? David kicked kinda good while having hair, and Victoria was in a band called the Spice Girls despite being a set square haunted by the ghost of a rice cracker.
Yeah - that was a hard watch…
Air bud.
I had a golden retriever growing up, and he was the best friend I could have asked for. Seeing the dog in peril (I don’t really remember the movie now) was too much, and I lost it.
I think the issue is more with the fact that only 1265 people have been rounded up, that they’ve had an average sentence of a year for an insurrection, and frankly, that they weren’t shot when trying to take the capitol building by force while chanting about lynching elected officials.
Surely it’d have to be a little goatee…
I’m concerned about the working poor
and
Modest would be sharing a studio with several other people. (…) I don’t think society should be targeting the “lives alone in a one-bedroom” lifestyle as the minimum when sharing a space is a reasonable and much more affordable way to live.
Aren’t compatible positions, and
There’s no consensus that the minimum wage actually helps people
is a laughable one - it’s one of the most studied topics in economics, and when you put any effort whatsoever into controlling for biases, the evidence is unambiguous.
Billionaires are an active drain on society. They shouldn’t exist.
Their unchecked, unreasonable economic power buys political power that undermines democracy.
Their resources were snatched from the workers that did the productive labour, disincentivising them from that productive work.
The huge pools of comparatively idle capital act as a handbrake on the economy, whereas workers would stimulate the economy by spending that money.
The environmental impact of billionaires and things like their superyachts is absolutely incredible.
…but we’ll fuck workers to the point that they can’t afford their own shelter to ensure that those billionaires can exist. Again, why?
It’s very good to live in this country (…) because even the people with the lowest incomes here have more money than a middle-class person there.
Again, you’re defending people being paid wages too low to afford their own shelter. Minimum fucking wage, my guy - because the billionaires will pay people as little as they can get away with - up to and including restoring slavery if given the opportunity.
As for people fleeing one formerly fascist capitalist hellscape for another that’s sliding toward fascism? What’s this supposed to tell me?
If we blend the peasants into a fine paste, imagine how many more we could fit!
Why are you defending both these conditions for people and superyachts? In what way is this good for society? Shall we return to slavery - productivity will skyrocket as labour costs plummet, and you can motivate your workers by beating them nearly to death.
It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.
If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?
Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.
Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven’t bitten that bullet.
Knowing where the weapons Israel is using to commit genocide come from, it seems relevant.
Similarly, Hamas and Israel are bad, but not in a remotely comparable way.