FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
38m ago
When were adaptations good in your experience?
Let's have a look at what Rotten Tomatoes considers the 300 best movies of all time:
- The Godfather (#1)
- Rear Window (#4)
- LA Confidential (#5)
- The Battle of Algiers (#9)
- Schindler's List (#10)
- Cool Hand Luke (#23)
- How to Train Your Dragon (#25)
- The Godfather pt. 2 (#28)
- Dr. Strangelove (#36)
- The Wages of Fear (#40)
- The Maltese Falcon (#41)
- Spotlight (#42)
- Grave of the Fireflies (#44)
- Psycho (#46)
- The Wizard of Oz (#49)
That's just from the top fifty: according to ChatGPT, 29% of the list are adaptations of one kind or another.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1hr ago
I think that has more to do with someone's interests than their appearance.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
I assume @ArjinFerman was referring to how many state benefits the modal migrant can expect to receive in the UK vs. France.
I'm actually quite annoyed at your glib dismissal of my post and your insistence that these people cannot possibly mean what they say, especially when the literal Prime Minister of the UK has not ruled out the possibility of a public inquiry into the media's handling of the Arday case:
Calls are growing for an investigation into media reporting of the case. An open letter to Andy Burnham demanding a public inquiry “to ensure we never see a tragic death like Dr Arday’s again” has gathered more than 85,000 names.
The prime minister is said to be open to the idea and has not ruled out “Leveson 2” – the planned second part of the earlier inquiry into British press standards, which was cancelled in 2018.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
4hr ago
Baby boomers and Gen Xers described a woman of average attractiveness (neither ugly nor hot) as "plain". Gen Z describes such women as "mid".
Does no equivalent word exist for Millennials?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
4hr ago
How old are you? And how high is your libido?
It was bad enough to suggest that some sorts of outrage only come from people lying about their beliefs.
Why was it "bad enough"? What was "bad enough"? Shame on me for daring to suggest that a person who refuses to give a straight answer to a simple factual question might not be being entirely honest. Yes, I do in fact think that some people just go on the internet in front of their constituents and tell lies.
Why? What’s wrong with the first answer?
As mentioned by someone downthread, multiple things can be true at once. It can simultaneously be true that some people signing this petition think it's a sensible no-brainer of a proposal, while others have no expectation of anything like it passing into law, and are simply using it as a means to vent their frustration or signal their in-group. I know this, I'm not an idiot.
I really don't get what the complaint is here. On the one hand, you criticised me for accusing politicians of lying. At the same time, you're saying "the people who signed this petition don't really mean it, they're just pounding their chests, don't take them so seriously". In other words, you're criticising me for – taking what they say at face value and not assuming they're lying about their intentions. Which one is it? Should I call people liars, or not?
"It's bad when you assume that people who give evasive non-answers to simple factual questions aren't being entirely honest about what they believe. It's also bad when you don't assume that people aren't being sincere in their motivations for signing a petition." What do you want from me, exactly?
Ha ha, point and laugh at the Limeys.
Believe me when I tell you that I treat Limeys with far more charity and forbearance than the average Irishman does.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
7hr ago
I'd argue that the integration of foreigners has actually gone better than in other states.
I don't know how anyone with even the most passing familiarity with the grooming gangs scandal can possibly believe this. If this is what "better" looks like, I'd hate to see the countries that have done worse than the UK, in your book.
I think the primary reason so many "asylum seekers" cross the channel is because they know the UK will provide them with generous state benefits more or less indefinitely, and that they will be able to commit crimes with impunity, only receiving the occasional slap on the wrist.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
17hr ago
the statistics actually do show a worrying trend which the government is trying to keep for us (such a trend may exist, but this is not evidence)
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
17hr ago
by all rights your standards for Jews you are willing to hide in your basement when the Gestapo are on the prowl should be lower than your standards for peacetime houseguests.
I think this is a profoundly tasteless context in which to invoke the Holocaust. Are any of these so-called "asylum seekers" fleeing literal genocide? Most of the headlines I've seen boil down to "we can't send this man who raped a British woman back to his home country, because he'd be put to death for having committed the same crime over there (which was, in fact, the very thing that prompted him to flee in the first place)".
I once read an article criticising Naomi Klein, in which the author pointed out that, in 2007, Klein published a book called The Shock Doctrine, whose central thesis was a strategy called "disaster capitalism", in which political actors exploit the chaos of natural disasters, wars, and other crises to push through unpopular policies such as deregulation and privatization. In her subsequent book, This Changes Everything, Klein argued that the climate crisis cannot be addressed in the current era of neoliberalism, and hence that the only solution is to instate Full Communism.
Huh. Political actors exploit the chaos caused by natural disasters to implement unpopular economic policies, you say?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
The golden rule has no impossible prerequisites.
It does, though. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But that requires me to imagine myself in circumstances that would never and can never befall me (it's impossible for me to have been born with one leg, or been born a woman, or been born a different ethnicity), just as the veil of ignorance does.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
It's a gotcha question. Either:
a) they believed him (meaning they're stupid and gullible, hence unqualified to make hiring decisions), or
b) they didn't believe him, but hired him anyway (meaning they knowingly hired a con artist).
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
Public figures such as elected officials would most likely, if not exempted from such protection entirely, at least have a much higher threshold.
Jason Arday had appeared on television numerous times.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
Ah, by themotte I assumed you were referring to the current iteration, not the subreddit. Obviously Reddit is its own thing.
But this is my point: SecureSignals is free to post here.
How do you thread the needle between not banning/algorithmically deprioritizing people for supporting Trump (sounds good), QAnon, holocaust denial (uh...), kiddie porn? I grant that it's probably feasible to separate out kiddie porn, actual terrorists and criminals from the rest, but you're left with a broad spectrum of shit that most normies just don't want to deal with.
There's long been an argument that social media companies cannot be held legally liable for the content that appears on their sites, as they're just a facilitator, not a publisher: it wouldn't be fair to hold Facebook legally responsible for Rohingya massacres, any more than it would be to hold a telephone company responsible for a bank robbery which was planned over the phone by two of their customers. Fair enough. But if that social media platform then starts banning people for legally protected speech, they ought to lose this protection: they are explicitly making judgement calls over which content they will and will not host, which is publication.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know it's not fair that Facebook gets to act like a publisher, but only gets treated like a utility provider in the eyes of the law. Can't have it both ways.
Even themotte has to crack down on holocaust denial, HBD and other topics from time to time.
Does it? Certainly mods have handed down bans to posters who talk about these topics, but generally because they violated other rules in the process of doing so, not for the mere act of bringing the topics up in the first place. I'm not aware of someone being banned simply for bringing up Holocaust denial or HBD.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
I explicitly acknowledged all of that in the OP. And it's over 4,000 signatures now.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
No one thinks the veil of ignorance can actually exist. It's a thought experiment meant to guide our intuitions, basically a more sophisticated version of the golden rule.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
I meant "in everyone's best interest" in the Rawlsian veil of ignorance sense. In a realpolitik sense, obviously it's best if you can design the rules so that they always benefit your ingroup and hurt your outgroup. Most progressives at least pretend to believe that justice is (or should be) blind.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2d ago
New Year's resolution check-in:
- Went to the gym three times last week and again on Monday evening. I can deadlift 1.76x my bodyweight, squat 1.26x and bench press 0.71x.
- Have not consumed any pornography since waking up on January 1st.
How goes it @self_made_human, @thejdizzler, @birb_cromble, @ThomasdelVasto and @falling-star?
Point taken, although I took @thejdizzler's point to be "Hollywood no longer knows how to make adaptations that are good movies" rather than "Hollywood no longer knows how to make faithful adaptations".
More options
Context Copy link