Greatoneshere

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Intent doesn’t matter in whether or not your language is homophobic or not. If I call you retarded because I think you are making a dumb argument, I don’t intend harm on those who actually are mentally challenged in some way and yet the basis of the insult is in the notion that you are a lesser person for that.

 

You clearly understand what is being communicated when people make those Trump/Putin jokes, just go one step further and think about why those are supposedly negative relational dynamics.

Actually, I disagree with the notion that if I call you retarded that I'm making fun of mentally challenged/mentally handicapped people.

I'm saying: retard also means, colloquially, that you're a stupid person, and if I'm trying to insult you, I could go that route (I personally wouldn't, but I wouldn't mind if someone in front of me did). So long as it was clear. Similarly, if I'm saying Trump "takes it up the ass" from Putin (again, not something I would say personally per se), I don't find that homophobic. I think it would be best to ask someone like @Komusha though since he could provide a better perspective on the difference between how they used it vs. how others use it.

I want to be clear - I understand your argument. The language is vile, so it doesn't matter how it is being applied, it seems you are saying. I disagree I think. I'm saying that semiotically the negative relational dynamic doesn't exist here due to the intent, motive, context, and the specificity of the person the language is being aimed at. That is entirely my point, that there is no negative relational dynamic when what is being called out is "taking it up the ass" not because gay men actually do that (which would be insulting and indefensible, I agree), but because it insults Trump, someone who would find that insulting, not gay men. As I said, it's about alpha vs. beta male dynamics and being cucked. It's about power, not being gay. 

The difference between insulting a specific person using words that can have a negative relational dynamic and those same words actually carrying that negative relational dynamic depends entirely on, as I said, context, intent, motive, etc. Just my .02 though.

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Jewish groups/anti-racist organizations rake Zuck the Capo over the coals.

As well those groups should. 

One step closer to Bojack Horseman. 

1 hour ago, Hurdyb1 said:

Psycho Pass Season 1

 

It took me awhile which should have not been the case but it was so good. Major things happened in this season. I'm a little disappointed  that season 2 only seems to have 11 episodes on Hulu compared to the 22 episodes of season 1. I just hope it's as good and that all 11 make a season and this doesn't stop part way thru.

There's also a Psycho-Pass film, make sure to watch that too, that takes place after season 2. Season 2 is indeed just 11 episodes. 

52 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

This movie has only gotten better with age.

It really has. It's fantastic. 

13 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

1) they’re not alt right

2) it’s homophobic 

Except it's not. Again, coding a person and coding a group of people are entirely different things. They may not be "alt right", but the tweet is still stupid either way. 

12 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

It's something I've not really thought about, the use of "taking it up the ass" or "bending someone over" as insults. Are they homophobic? To me it seems more of a dominance thing than a gay thing (you are fucking someone, or getting fucked by them). Similar to how someone might say "man I got fucked on that deal." Is "getting fucked" homophobic because of the implication that you as a male are on the receiving end of another male? I am honestly curious if these things are widely considered homophobic. I could be wrong (and opinions can and will change over time), but I've always viewed those sayings as apart from sexuality, and to do with dominance.

This.

12 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The idea that Trump and Putin having sex together is used to emasculate both of them (particularly Trump here in the US). It's trolling Trump supporters (like the ~90% of evangelicals who support him) not just because he's a puppet or stooge, but specifically because he is that while also engaging in homosexual behavior. The implicit declaration is "your tough guy isn't tough because he's gay"

This.

11 hours ago, sblfilms said:

It is absolutely homophobic language. The root of its is misogyny, though. The insult originated from the notion that a gay man receiving anal sex is like a woman by virtue of a man penetrating him, and being penetrated by a man is a way in which a woman’s weakness is shown. If you have to perpetuate ugly narratives about innocent bystanders to make your joke, you shouldn’t make the joke.

 

It is indefensible.

I am asking honestly: how is it homophobic? I said this in the example with the guy who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple and shaming Sarah Huckabee Sanders by asking her to leave the restaurant. I know we disagreed there too, but there is a HUGE difference between, as I said, coding a person and coding a group of people. Any comedian will tell you that. They aren't shaming or making fun of gay people there, they are making fun of alphas vs. betas and being cucked. It's about power, not homophobia (the intent and context, not how the joke originated, which is irrelevant here).

I'm asking honestly because I want to understand: do you really not see a difference between insulting an individual using harsh language that doesn't implicitly insult the group the "insult came from" as may be perceived here? Legally, there are clear differences (look at libel and slander laws). Comedically, there are clear differences. In this thread, some people get the difference. Are you saying one does not exist or you just don't think there's one?

Because that's three examples now where you insist that it's an all or nothing proposition. Either the comments are always homophobic regardless of intent, context, and specificity of person it is being aimed at, or they are never homophobic, whether it's the alt right or progressive left. I think things are a lot more nuanced than that.

Also, there's a huge difference between the progressive left being "accidentally" homophobic when putting a target on Trump's back specifically (especially when the criticism is warranted with Trump and Putin) and when the alt right intentionally uses homophobia to create hate and fear and incite violence against the LGBTQIA+ community. Surely you see that difference, at least?

13 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I work with a lot of Filipino nurses and techs. It's remarkable how popular Duterte is among them. Including the young ones. They're basically applauding his slaughter of thousands of citizens without any due process. 

When something is normal to you someone like us demanding better standards feels weird, almost wrong to them.

The amount of people that laugh in my face at the idea we can do Medicare for All and College for All is a lot. It's like they're so used to those two systems being shitty that the idea that it could change for a lot better earns derision. Once I explain my ideas to them slowly and carefully it's like they wake up and realize just how bad it truly is in America vs. what they think America is. Same here with the Filipinos. 

McCabe is Comey!!

SPACE FORCE.

Why doesn't he put some fucking sanctions on Russia, AT LEAST, while he's at it? I mean GODDAMN.

2 hours ago, DPCyric said:

I hope no one is surprised by this because Erdogan is completely Trump's type of guy. Anyone who gets in office and praises Duterte doesn't have much further down they can sink 

He's officially praised, at least, Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, Rodrigo Duterte, and now Recep Erdogan. It's fucking ridiculous.

1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

That's the dumbest tweet the alt right has made yet. How can they STILL not tell the different between coding a group of people and coding a specific person? Trump taking it up the ass from Putin is funny not because it makes fun of gay men but because it makes fun of Trump - especially since he sees himself as such a heterosexual alpha male. They just don't have the intelligence to understand the difference.

Lock him up! Lock him up! Or something.

1 hour ago, Firewithin said:

Think the zuck saw how musk was fucking up this week and was like hold my beer

1 minute ago, osxmatt said:

Facebook’s problem is they allow all points of view, even ones that are objectively false or hateful. They believe this makes them look tolerant and reasonable, when in fact it does the opposite. 

DING DING DING

1 hour ago, Bataar said:

That's a tough one. It definitely has its low points. It's been years since I've seen 1 and 2, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say 2 was better than 1.

As much as I love M:I II, it's barely a real movie. M:I is very easily the better film. They are so different as to be barely comparable though. 

5 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I think it's fine to go after Google for exclusivity payments, even if they don't go after everyone. I get the impression that (if this ruling stands) Microsoft could sign an agreement with Samsung or Orange to make Bing the default search engine on some or all of their Android phones. I'd  rather the EU just have a law that outlines when something like that is allowed, market leader or not. 

That would be my preference as well, but I'll take whatever I can get in this post-Citizens United, pro-Citizens United world. 

33 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I think it’s fine to question whether specific mutual defense agreements are in the best interest of your nation. It makes sense to sign mutual defense agreements with nations where we share strong economic ties and that have a relatively low likelihood of being involved in a conflict.

 

Obviously there are more issues than that underneath this particular questioning.

*Assuming a rational actor is at the helm should be at the end of almost every post we all make.  

30 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Build the wall out of the Clintons and Obama since they're impossible to get over.

52 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Like I said before, I think there is something to Google buying exclusivity arrangements. That is an abuse of market power to the detriment of their competitors and prevents real competition taking place. Of course, the only reason that such exclusivity arrangements exist is because other companies were trying to do the same thing. 

I think we're in agreement. I like Google, and I'm a huge proponent of open source and having options. What I don't like is the bullying and exclusivity arrangements part is all. You seem to agree there. If the Commissions lack of broadness or inability to penalize all offending companies I would agree with you but to say not going after Google because the Commission didn't go after others, that I'm not so sure about. (if that's what you're saying). 

5 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

This is a stupid decision. Bundling chrome and google search into android is really not that big of a deal as long as you allow preinstalled alternatives. Various device makers and carriers already pre-load alternatives and set them as default apps, Google isn't directly preventing that. I think it's naive to say that at this point that an OS and a web browser are entirely distinct and if Google is building an OS, it seems perfectly fair for them to also require their browser. At least they, unlike their competition, allow different rendering engines and allow OEMs, carriers, and users to set their own defaults.

 

I think there's something of an argument to be made when it comes to Google buying exclusivity, but it still seems odd to tell Google they can't do that, but allow other companies to do it.

 

The issue of Android forking is something I'm not entirely clear on. Google allows forks, but doesn't allow them to use the Play Store. If that's the whole issue, it seems fair to me, though I'm open to counter arguments. I realize that access to the store is the primary reason that Android isn't forked, but I think it's kind of extraordinary that Android can be forked under any circumstances. This decision, assuming it stands, could very well be the end of AOSP, and will certainly accelerate the move of crucial components from ASOP to Google Play Services.

 

Overall it just seems odd to me that Google is now subject to the largest antitrust fine in history for allowing their platform to be open, but not open enough. If you're Apple and you don't allow anything. I realize it's the difference between how you're treated with 75% market share vs 25%, but still.

Is your issue that they are going after only Google or that they are doing it at all? Because I'm all for going after all of them if possible.

I have no problem with pre-loads, but bullying it into existence is not something I'm a fan of, which is how this read to me. And anything that limits monopolies and trusts, even arguably benign blocks such as this one (is it really bad they pre-load their stuff? no) because they are already running loose and drunk on power. 

6 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The European Commission says Google has abused its Android market dominance in three key areas. Google has been bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also allegedly blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android, and it “made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators” to exclusively bundle the Google search app on handsets.

It's dumb for Google to do it anyway - are they really worried people won't immediately download their apps first anyway? C'mon now. This is a good thing by the Commission. 

25 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I'll check Source Code out the next time it's on cable or something... I remember it being similar to Deja Vu? I actually liked that movie a lot. Moon, I saw a couple of times... it's not bad. Just underwhelming considering the hype it got. At least to me. I thought it was a great effort for a first time though and looked forward to films from him in the future and have been disappointed.  I follow him on Twitter and he seems like a cool guy though.

If you do check it out again let us know what you think!

And yeah, I actually follow him on Twitter too. Smart, cool guy. 

4 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

 

Trump's worldview: being a treasonous advocate for the Russian Federation OR nuclear war.

No middle ground there eh?

And why so tough on our allies then compared to Russia? Surely it's important to get along with them too. 

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Na, I thought both were decent but not amazing. Didnt see Warcraft and Mute was pretty bad.

I just suggested it because you seemed to say you don't remember them well. I'm sure you'd still think they were only decent. 

11 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Source Code! That's the other one I was trying to think of... is that the one with Jake Gyllenhaal? That was ok as well... I honestly don't remember much about it besides it existing.

Hahaha yeah, that's the one with Jake Gyllenhaal. Jones' direction really elevates a pretty mundane screenplay into a really good (but not great) movie. Moon is better but Source Code is good.

Maybe both are due for a rewatch for you?