Fizzzzle

I mean, yes, but also I'm assuming they've already spent hundreds of millions on the movie, so it's not so much "protecting Ezra Miller" so much as "fuck, we need to salvage something out of this." Then again they shelved Bat Girl after it was like straight up finished, so... Honestly who the hell knows what they're up to at WB right now.

It amazes me that the entertainment industry had, for all intents and purposes for 99% of people, basically eliminated piracy for a few years by simply making their content convenient to watch through streaming. Over the last couple years, it seems like they are trying everything they can to undo that progress. You can take 50% of something or 100% of nothing. We live in the internet age now, if you make it too much of a pain in the ass/too expensive to consume your content, people will just pirate it. Anecdotally, I used to pirate basically everything. I pretty much stopped pirating content in like 2015 because streaming became extremely easy and affordable. The more complicated and expensive this shit gets, the more attractive those seven seas becomes.

I know, was generalizing. Point being, if preventing illegal immigration was actually a priority, preventing citizens of Nicaragua or wherever from entering the US would accomplish their goal far more efficiently than putting up a wall. But they won't actually suggest that, because "illegal immigration" is just a smoke screen

Like... If you think about it for longer than two seconds, the idea of a border wall is fucking stupid if preventing illegal immigration is the goal. Option A: pay some smuggler thousands of dollars to snuggle you and your family across the border in the middle of the night, risking death Option B: just take a fucking bus for like $50 It's not like Mexicans aren't allowed to just... enter the country through a legal port of entry.

That's effectively the same as having parking passes for residents, right? Like, to park your car in the street in a given area you have to have an address in the zip code.

The very idea that they send buses of immigrants to fucking New York of all places as if to say "let's see how THEY deal with immigrants!" when it's like... New York deals with far, far, far, far more illigal migrants than Texas. As you said, more immigrants come via plane than across the border. I don't see what the point is supposed to be. "SeE hOw ThEy lIkE iMmIgRanTs!" and New York is like "bro... this is Tuesday."

Certain cities in Europe have been dabbling with that. Berlin recently (or is about to, I can't remember) ban private vehicles from the city center. Paris has effectively done so. There are fairly large swaths of Rome that has done so. Barcelona introduced "superblocks." Basically, they don't ban driving, what they actually do is ban parking (Paris, Berlin) or basically make the roads a maze for anyone but pedestrians/cyclists and force cars onto major roads (Barcelona) Certain neighborhoods in Portland have started dabbling with superblocks. In Northwest Portland, all north-south traffic gets funneled along a one-way couplet. If you try to drive through the neighborhood any other way, you'll eventually get funneled onto it. I honestly think banning parking for non-residents is the move, though. Don't allow non-residents to park in urban centers outside of parking garages, and force residents inside urban centers to pay for parking passes. Support for public transit will skyrocket before I can finish cumming.

More states just need to get into the mail-in system. Turns out it's pretty fucking dope. Oregon's been doing it since 2000, the sky hasn't fallen. Oregon - 2000 Washington - 2012 Colorado - 2014 Utah - 2019 (individual counties can still choose to opt out) Hawaii - 2020 California - 2022 Nevada - 2022 Vermont - 2022 Get on board, motherfuckers. Choo-choo. Also I find it funny that the first 3 states to have mail-in voting for all elections were the first 3 states to legalize marijuana. Very on-brand.

Well, butter my ass and call me a cheddar bay biscuit

Oooh yeah, data me, daddy EIGHTY-FUCKING-SIX PERCENT OF PEOPLE IN INLAND EMPIRE HAVE ACCESS TO 2 OR MORE CARS, WHAT THE FUCK @The def star To put that in perspective, 23% of people in the New York MSA say they don't have access to a car at all

I agree, the whole "fake-out death" thing is already getting kind of old. We know Isildur isn't dead. We know Celeborn isn't dead. Bronwyn has already had like 3 fakeout deaths. As for how Celeborn eventually fits into the story (I initially thought they would just omit him, but now that he's been brough up, I assume he'll show up), I wonder if he will take the place of Glorfindel in the story. My boy Glorfindel just can't seem to make it into an adaptation. He's got too much BDE, I think.

Switching to electric cars is only a band aid, also. The real move is getting rid of car dependency altogether.

I've met a couple Dominican people who are darker than midnight who will absolutely claim they're not black. It has a different meaning for them.

Apparently I have to get some new ideas. Funny how that was almost exactly a year ago. It seems you have a greater memory of my posts than I do.

I see what you did there, and I respect it

To count a state, you have to have left either your car/gas stations OR have to have left the airport I think I've been to 21. Something tells me there are people here who have been to everywhere except like north Dakota or something

Alright, so I decided to finish the series in one go. It's an ostensibly YA series, so it is basically emotionally manipulative by default, but if you don't cry at some point during the last couple episodes, you're a goddamned psychopath. It's not often you say that about horror.

I'm a little over halfway through the series. Like I said, it's tonally different than Flanagan's other stuff, but it's still really good. It's definitely aimed at more of a YA audience, which you can tell by how on-the-nose a lot of the social commentary is, but it still doesn't hold back in terms of storytelling or creepiness.

I mean, that guy is probably a shit bag, too but at least he didn't FIGHT IN REBELLION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES smh... Imagine if the Brits had a "Fort Cromwell."

I think it was the year that Crash won that the system started breaking. Like, that movie is fine, I guess, but it checked all of the "Oscar" boxes (slow pacing, vague pluralities about racism, ensemble cast, etc) and people afterwards were like "... hol'up"

I think it says a lot that shows like the Daily Show or comedians like Jonathan Pie will occasionally make fun of Joe Biden (not anything serious, mind you, more like light hearted ribbing), while you would never hear a conservative making fun of Donald Trump's 7-year-old diet or whatever.

I'm down for anything Mike Flanagan. The first episode was pretty good, if just a bit more silly than his usual fare.

I do get that. I'm just more responding to "why didn't they find an LGTBQ actor?" and I'm like... I don't know, there could be a hundred different reasons why they didn't hire an LGBTQ actor. It could be political, it could be financial, it could be whatever. Not to mention that it's not like every LBGTQ actor publicly declares their sexual orientation, so now you're opening a can of worms where all LGBTQ actors have to publicly declare their sexuality before being accepted for gay/queer roles. And that's not anybody's business and not every actor is open to sharing that kind of shit.

The whole "LGBTQ characters need to be played by LGBTQ actors " angle is still something I struggle with. Like, obviously they have a natural advantage in terms of bringing more authenticity to a role, but there seems to be this growing sentiment that ONLY LGBTQ actors can play LGBTQ characters, and I'm like... It's literally an actor's job to portray someone they're not. Obviously that doesn't touch things like white washing different races or anything like that, but like... That's different. A white person cannot pretend to be Asian. I recognize the territory I'm treading on, and that's why I think it's more important to me that the people actually telling the story are more authentic. Is it a story about a woman? Then I think the writer and/or director should be a woman, etc. But like, the actors? It's their job to translate authenticity to the screen. If they can't do that, then they aren't very good actors. I guess I just struggle with where the line is where an actor has to literally BE the role they're portraying. Some people want to take that to the logical extreme. All that said, the idea that they had to get APPROVAL to only cast LGBTQ actors for a story about LGBTQ people is strange to me. I'm open to being ripped apart for my thoughts.