@HalloweenSnarry's banner p

HalloweenSnarry


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 02:37:25 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 795

HalloweenSnarry


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 02:37:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 795

Verified Email

What did you want the aircraft to do, pull over at the nearest truck stop so the passengers could get a fountain drink and a bag of skittles?

...Is that not what other airports can act as? Granted, that's mostly an emergency thing, from what little I know, but theoretically, if the law allowed for/required it, a hypothetical plane carrying people in an illegal manner could be compelled to divert and land.

It's a glib snipe at Aella being female, I assume.

Then I suppose the protocols around putting undocumented immigrants on planes will be tightened up to avoid large-scale emergency diversions.

There's a lot that Susan gets flack for, chief among them being the CEO of YouTube during its TV-ification.

I mean, the goal seems to be for money rather than pure mastery-of-reality, I guess it's a hoax in the same way as something like the jackalope and less like the normal conspiracy theory inflection the word "hoax" might have.

According to YouTube's front page, though, there are better women's sports to watch, at least if you want to stare at athletes' rear ends...

But Tarn still raises a good point: the current ruling coalition of India is a political party and a strongman head-of-state who is considerably right-wing compared to the previous ruling coalition. Will Modi reverse every last element of socialism stemming from India's independence? Probably not, but I'm under the impression that much has already been done in that direction. And given the uncertainty about the old Congress ever managing to wrest their seat of power back from the BJP, it's hard to thus conclude that India will accelerate leftwards.

To add onto Ec's reply, I think the argument they were trying to make is that the Olympics and all other televised major sports sell a subtly/deceptively-unrealistic image of human capabilities. Frankly, I think a lot of sports-related marketing also does that (athletes on the Wheaties boxes!), and if, instead, we were honest while still trying to make sports a thing for everyone, we'd probably have to become bio-realist to some degree.

When you phrase it that way, it sounds like a slam-dunk, but I think there's probably enough wiggle room between what we did get and the unrealized plan. A larger campaign might be comparatively more sanitized for the American public.

I suppose I'm not entirely sure, so I'll leave it as an open challenge/prompt. The sustained dissonance between audience and critic ratings on RottenTomatoes might not exactly tell you if wokeness is eroding the final product, I suspect, but I'm open to someone arguing for a semi-reliable heuristic based on some logical factors. Maybe asking for proof that a vibe shift really is taking place is too hard an ask for anyone, but I'd still like to make sure that "latest thing bombed, Hollywood is doomed" is something more than social media amplifying whispers into thunderclaps.

I suspect the cynical explanation is that the British government doesn't have the same motive for putting its thumb on the scale like the American government would. They don't need to sell their people on any narrative in particular, because they don't really get themselves into wars (and pretty much most of the ones the UK has been in after WWII have been divisive at best) and they aren't tied up in global affairs like the US is.

So, I would say, yes, the BBC will probably be tilted in favor of the establishment, but there's no real pressure to be against said establishment.

What would you call that situation, if not a hoax?

A plot? A scheme?

To leave aside the divisive "groomer" argument, you still need to argue that transgenderism is inherently-negative cetis paribus--i.e., the problems associated with it would still be present absent the element of social stigma. This doesn't have to include over-correcting enthusiasm, just more whether these outcomes are replicable in a vacuum.

I'm gonna second this and add that I think there's a lot of great art coming around right now, of various degrees of relevance to current social issues, but a lot of it is in other media like anime, video games, and web video, and not merely familiar things like music and film.

On the topic of music, though, HEALTH's new album Rat Wars is shaping up to be something quite special; check out "DEMIGODS" and "ASHAMED."

Yeah, I suppose it's hard to say if Mulvaney would really have just been more of a one-off thing or the prototype for a new marketing campaign.

I think Warhammer video games, of all things, shows that the "shotgun" approach can work.

But this wasn't always the case, and there are (presumably) parts of America where this still isn't the case. I don't know how you decisively debunk the "the cruelty is the point" viewpoint when it comes to what Republicans have managed to get implemented when they had the opportunity.

Why the criticism of TikTok as a sample source? I'd imagine it's actually less vulnerable to sampling bias than Twitter, being that it's stupidly-popular. Now, granted, I'd use it more as a finger on the pulse of what's popular with the younger demographics, but still.

I suspect the stakes simply haven't been raised enough. If it were to come down to dire circumstances like either of the World Wars, where food is tight and industrial nations are reduced to stamping crude submachine guns out of sheet steel, then luxury beliefs will have to be outcompeted at some point.

In addition to the other comments, would Greenwald not be a good arbiter of what Russian shenanigans look like, even discounting the inaccuracy of "Greenwald laundered the emails"?

Or is Japanese homosexual pornography also heavy on high-pitched nasal squealing ?

No, I suspect it's more along the lines of OH MY SHOULDER

If being gay requires sexual experiences with another man to solidify, then wouldn't there have to be some first gay man who has sex with a handful of boys? In which case, what man seduced the first gay man and made him gay?

Well, I do remember a comedy skit audio where the premise was that one caveman was curious about butt stuff...

Alas, I think your argument here reaches a plateau in momentum; trans rights advocates would probably say, "well, duh, because trans people aren't respected by mainstream society." They have the plausibility-shield of "trans people don't spontaneously end up dead because of hormones, but because of social rejection."

Another is that I read that women often support FGM in societies that practice it, which is quite shocking if you come from the narrative that it's always specifically men who are imposing such abhorrent practices.

I mean, surely moms go along with that program, not unlike (and I raise this example merely for the sake of one angle of similarity, not claiming these are the same thing) how progressive moms are the ones who support their kids transitioning in gender? Probably still coerced by the fathers, though.

Okay then, tell us why we shouldn't demonize Hitler? Because even eliding over things like the Holocaust or the near-conquest of Europe, if you take the most overly-charitable view of Hitler, all you see is a guy who riled people up, picked fights his country couldn't and shouldn't have, and then proceeded to lose so badly that he didn't even have the courage to face his people about the loss, let alone the wrath of two superpowers coming to tear down his government.

If anything, even National Socialists wouldn't (and didn't) want to identify with a loser, and there are indeed few things as bad as being seen as the loser by history. Even Confederacy aesthetics and revanchism from American Southerners is pitiable by comparison--Nazis only have copium.