Comments

So, will the feminists go to war with Gingrich's moon base?
This does sort of go with the whole issue brought up in the last post, the whole "they don't really act the way they talk" thing. If they genuinely believed that the fetus is exactly equal to a human, and that thus abortion is exactly equivalent to state sanctioned murder, and the ammount of deaths is a holocaust, etc, etc, etc ... they don't really seem to be doing anything to stop it. Most people would hurt others to stop killing, or even kill. So, outside of the crazies (who, if they are taking the rhetoric as literally are acting 'rationally') no one is really willing to act on the "1 fetus = 1 human" thing. So, outside of the people bombing clinics and killing doctors, the majority are at least acting as if they believe that a fetus' life is worth the same as a baby's life. And, thus their overblown rhetoric should be blamed for inciting violence in those that cannot understand the implied "sort of" at the end of things like "Abortion is murder" and "Life begins at conception" and stuff like that. If those unstable people would be comparable to a robot in fiction, the 'logical' steps from "Abortion is murder, killing one person to stop hundreds of murders is justifiable, therefore I should kill the abortion doctor" are pretty clear. The only thing to stop that is to know that, even though they are SAYING that killing a fetus is equivalent to murder, that isn't something that most of them don't believe enough to actually do anything about it other than protest and petition and legislate around the edges.
On the "inherently invalid" ... that was likely the wrong wording. I intended more to imply that it's uninformed. Unless he has went out of his way to learn about vastly different lives than his own, it's quite possible that he has an uninformed opinion, since being rich, white and male would all mean he could easily go most of his life without actually having been put into situations that he is judging other people about. And the MASSIVE difference is, that he is a LAW MAKER. His opinion allows him to pass laws and actually force people to behave in a certain manner based on that opinion. I, on the other hand, only have the ability to deem, for MYSELF, that someone's opinion is invalid, and AT BEST, I can convince others of the same thing. There isn't really a flip side ... someone that is that far removed from Romney's world is not going to be in a position to IMPOSE those opinions onto him. Anyone in high enough office to actually change the tax laws is at least reasonably rich and privileged. Now, a lot of people's opinion on what Mitt should pay, on both sides, is uninformed, or at least not significantly informed. It is possible to be informed, on either situation. Now, if a rich, white, male anthropologist, or real doctor, or someone else that would be INFORMED in their opinion said it, it would be less likely that they'd be questioned. Similarly, economists that point out that the whole trickle down thing is a load, and that the economy is driven by the middle class buying shit (because if they are buying stuff, THEN companies will create jobs as they have to increase production to meet demand because that will make them more money ... they aren't going to spend tax money to increase production if there is no demand as that wouldn't result in larger profits, it would be wasting money.) And, as the "how much taxes should Romney pay" thing has to do with the entire economy, and not with the lives of people that would never actually cross your path (for example, this Senator could likely be in a social circle where no one would actually be impacted by his stupid policy based on his ignorant opinion.)
He said be fruitful and multiply, and by gum, we are going to make sure that EVERYONE does it whether they like it or not. See also: why they hate the gays.
His whiteness doesn't invalidate his opinion inherently. However as an overprivileged white man, his life experience is so far removed from those of women, especially underprivileged women, not to mention underprivileged minority women, that his opinion is invalid. Even overprivileged white women have some experience, but the issue of abortion availability is less of an issue. If you have enough money you can afford to go to where the services are. If you don't, you have fewer options, and it's the GOP's policy to reduce that more and more. It's not that "white people don't understand", but specifically, the ''rich/white/man" combination that lives a very different life from most other people. Now, if there were tons of rich minorities running around, it's possible that they too could become out of touch, however, few of them are generationally privileged, having only become rich in recently, and thus might still have some concept of how the rest of the world lives. The core of the sort of Ayn Rand/Bootstraps part of Republicanism is that their version of treating everyone equally is to not bother trying to make things equal at the start. If someone 'won' the lottery and was born into a rich family, and was able to go to good schools, had a family that could afford to pay to get them into good universities, where they make friends alllowing them to get great jobs, and they end up being rich (even without inheriting money from their parents), and someone else 'loses' the lottery and is born into poverty, forced to go to a crappy school, has to take on massive student loan debt to go to college, then has to work a crappy job to try and pay it off ... well, that second person could have hypothetically worked his butt off and been a genious and got a scholarship and been able to be just as successful as the first person. That one or two people are capable of succeeding against overwhelming odds is enough reason to not bother trying to make things better for the other 99.99% of people in the same situation, in their opinion. The argument is basically that anyone that is stuck in a continuous poverty cycle is only there because they didn't want to get out of it hard enough, ignoring of course that the "anyone can do it" conveniently forgets the "but not everyone can do it". The whole "be exceptional to get a free ride into better schools" thing only works for so many, since of course the word exceptional has a meaning, not to mention there are only so many scholarships offered.
There was a reason to watch Avatar that wasn't the visuals? If it was the story, you could have went to see Dances with Wolves, or Ferngully, or Pocahantus, or "White Man learns about Natives and becomes Greatest Native Ever and helps them fight against Other White Men rehashed plot 5928". Although,it is a bit like saying you like the stories of Ayn Rand, but don't like her philosophy.
Comic books haven't been for kids in years. The industry would giver offerings to Satan if they could get kids to read books. However ever since comics went to direct market and are basically only in comic book stores ... you get VERY few young kids reading the books. Sure, the spin off material may be succesful with kids, but that doesn't translate into sales. Even discounting the more artsy comic stuff, even the mainstream is not really aimed towards kids or teens. There are some books in their kids line, but that stuff is dwarfed in number and sales by the 'core' books.
You can always point out the whole Ayn Rand thing. If people are upset about atheists like Dawkins, Bill Maher, etc ... they should just love Paul Ryan's inspiration Ayn Rand. He's already backpedalling on her hard. "I was a big fan of her work growing up, but later in life, upon learning about her philosophy, I don't agree with it". It was unfortunate that learning about her philosophy ruined his love of Atlas Shrugged ...
Well, Todd's intro was "just a heads up, I proactively dealt with something that could be a problem later". He isn't the kind of guy that asks his bosses if he should turn off the nanny cam. He does it, and then tells them about it. So in this case, he kills the kid without asking, because asking if you should kill the kid (in front of the kid) would (a) make not killing the kid no longer an option and (b) give the kid a chance to run away. While Todd's willingness to go 'all in' on the whole drug thug thing is a bit jarring, it does fit with the ambitious/proactive thing they hinted at with his first appearance (that they included in the previously on).
They started the water part way to avoid diluting their own ammount too quickly. Also, the methylamine is already a solution in water (amongst other things), so adding water to it will still leave it as basically the same thing, there will just be less of it in the mixture. It would normally be a gas at room temperature, so they have to either put it into a solution or into a presurized cannister in order to transport and sell it.
"An anti-semitic homeless man signs up for J-Date." Now we know what happened to anti-semetic Elmo.
You do have to buy them by the pallette, so not many people take advantage of the great deals on thousands of copies of the same book.
Except, if the person you are giving the money to TELLS YOU what they are spending the money on, you now know. You can't continue to claim you don't know where the money is going after they have made it clear. And, the analogy breaks down. If you don't want to support Chik-Fil-A, you can just buy chicken somewhere else. And a boycott of chicken sandwiches won't reduce the price of chicken sandwiches. Buying it somewhere else won't increase the price (or maintain the price) because you are still buying the chicken from someone else. The drug market, as a black market, is shrouded in secrecy by its very nature, and it's possible that buying from one guy may have the money end up going to something you didn't expect. You can't exactly shop around and find a meth dealer you approve of ethically ... but you can very easily go to Popeyes or Wendy's or KFC or any other place that serves Chicken sandwiches and get BASICALLY the same product and know you are not giving money to the company that has come out against gay marriage. It's not a black market company.
Of course, the laws that outlaw the sale, distribution and possession of marijuana ALSO contribute to all those things. Thus, everyone that pays taxes that go to local, state and federal law enforcement and their war on drugs are creating the environment where a black market is able to thrive. Prohibition is a huge part of why organized crime was able to become so huge. So, while the individual purchasing drugs will be, in a small part, feeding into a black market system that involves all the negative aspects of organized crime ... so does nearly everyone who is not involved directly in the drug trade. Since the tax money isn't really something anyone can 'boycott' succesfully, the only real solution is trying to someone convince politicians to scale back the war on drugs. Someone like the President. Like Bill Clinton, who smoked pot before becoming president. Like W. Bush, who probably did cocaine at some point. Like Barack, who admited to both pot use AND cocaine use. If any of them had been cought, thanks to the war on drugs, they'd have had criminal records and never would have been president. People's lives are ruined because of posession charges, and sent to jail for a very long time. If they are 'unlucky' enough to get caught. And, interestingly enough, your luck is based a lot on where you live, which also happens to corralate greatly with ethnicity. The drug thing is much more nuanced ... and considering that fuel has terrorist ties as well, and basically buying ANYTHING is going to have an associated fuel cost (things have to be shipped places), it does become very hard to have a completely clear concience on what you buy. However, the 'money trail' for Chick-Fil-A is very easy. Company gets money, they spend it talking about how bad gay marriage is. No money trail needed. It's a pretty simple cause and effect, and there is a VERY easy alternative, go to any OTHER chicken place and get the same product without the same baggage.
It's mostly that they've found a 'loophole'. Most of the 'new' hatred is couched in "It's part of our faith". So, it's ok to hate gay people, and to make women second class citizens, and to brand Muslims as terrorists, and to basically hate on non-judeo-christian religions, and especially athetists, etc, etc, etc. Because if they 'claim' the intollerance is religious in nature, and you challenge it, now YOU are the one being intollerant of their religion. It's not about women getting health care, it's about "forcing" someone to go agaisnt their religious beliefs by making them allow their employees, EVEN THOSE THAT AREN'T OF THE SAME FAITH, to have the OPTION to use contraception. "My money might go to allowing someone to make a moral decision that I personally would not have made? The bible says I can't do that ..." Which is why pacifists get a big refund check every year saying "here is the money you didn't want going to the military".
Or, the middleground, where they lose money, not enough to end up with a ton of shut downs, but enough of a loss that they don't have a bunch of money they can reinvest by giving to superPACs and other political groups that will make them more money in the long run by lowering their taxes, keeping the minimum wage low, reducing union power, etc, etc, etc. It's not really a binary position where "I don't want people losing their jobs so I have to keep buying these gay marriage hating sandwiches". Boycotts, especially of something like a fast food chain which has so much competition there are probably millions of people "boycotting" Chick-Fil-A by virtue of never eating their with any frequency anyway.
"Don't use my real name in the credits"
The movies did go out of their way to say "Technically, Thor and Loki are aliens that humans mistook for gods ... don't picket our movies crazy religious people that picket everything". Then again, it was probably more of the "we don't want to mix magic into our mostly "pseudo-science" based universe, so just have the "sufficiently advanced science is the same as magic" mumbo jumbo to explain Thor.
NBC should just stop being a network and start being a cable channel. Apparently they can afford to have awesome shows without needing them to find shows that EVERYONE wants to watch. Because there are no shows that EVERYONE wants to watch. And why would anyone bother, when there are hundreds of channels, why would everybody agree to watch the same one at the same time anyway? Nothing appeals to 'everybody'. Heck, it would be hard to find something that appeals to a majority of people. You might get a sizeable chunk of the audience, but that's going to be a matter of luck. And, shows that did become massive hits were often given more than a couple of seasons to build up an audience, and had advertisers, and didn't just get thrown to the wolves by putting them against a show that does 4 times their rating and then get punished for not doing as well as the shows after it that do slightly better in the ratings despite having NO compeition in the same genre.
I'm pretty sure that Scarecrow's cameo was originally meant to be the Joker's, since it sort of fits him a bit better to be in charge of the kangaroo court. [Had they not killed off Harvey, it would have been a perfect role for him, but too much of the plot hinges on Harvey's death for that to have ever been a real possibility]. It probably would have just come across as awkard to mention it. They pulled it off in the Avengers with the "don't worry Thor, your girlfriend is safe even though she isn't in this movie" scene, but it would be a bit more awkward with name dropping the Joker since it's not keeping him in people's minds to be included in a sequel.
Considering I just finished the entire run of Secret Six where Bane rarely, if ever, is on Venom, but does have a very weird relationship with women (wanting to be surragate father's for them, and not in a "whose your daddy?" way), I was fine with the portrayal. He's still a powerhouse, and I don't think "super steroids" was really something they wanted to introduce to the Nolanverse.
I did goran at the Robin, but I'm glad they didn't make him Dick Grayson. In fact, when he first introduced himself to Bruce, it was nice that he basically took a mix of Jason (Robin II) and Tim (Robin III) as his backstory. He was an angry street kid, who lost his parents not exactly like Bruce, but instead because of their own vices. Similar to Tim, he was able to piece together Batman's identity on his own. Mixing the brains of Tim with the anger of Jason makes for a more interesting character, instead of just an acrobat in pixie boots (Dick gets more interesting, but that requires a lot of time to get to his later career, while Jason and Tim were more interesting right away).
Catwoman is sort of similar to Bane. Bane is just spouting the OWS line as a 'cover' for his activity and to incite the poorer citizens of Gotham to take part in the violence and riots, etc. Catwoman, on the other hand, was mostly justifying her own behaviour. While she can easily say that she only steals because she needs to, and she steals from people who have enough, etc, etc, etc ... when it came time for Batman to ask her to help save the city, her first reaction was "you don't owe these people anything". She did have her Han Solo moment, of deciding to do the right thing, but she was basically a selfish (not evil, just selfish) rogue. She did step up, but she needed to be pushed into it.
The Occupy 'talking' that Bane does is the equivalent of Hans Gruber being a terrorist. It's all a cover. He doesn't ACTUALLY want freedom, or an end to the rich or any of the BS that he is saying. He just wants to show Batman that the people will tear each other apart if they are given half a chance, and creates a situation where they can do that. He ultimately wants to put off the bomb, so all the stuff he does in the interum is equivalent to the ferry scene for the Joker. He's going to kill everyone anyway, but before he does it, he wants to 'prove' to Batman that they deserve to die. Bane does sort of harness the sort of unrest of groups like OWS and the Tea Party, but in a totally self serving way that doesn't really put forward their goals. So he might be an analogy for the Koch brothers instead of Bain Capital ;)
"It isn't?" - Tosh.0no
To be fair, I don't think "getting married" at ALL is the "Christ-like" thing to do. He seems to prefer the company of men anyway.
It doesn't help that, in addition to not showing the video, there are also like A TON of Tosh.0 adds all over the page. Good work on the targetted marketing job guys!
To be fair, he also called for wiping out all the jews. So it's quite possible that he didn't ACTUALLY mean that men should disregard women's feelings ...
Awesome article. And the Johny Mulaney bit is very funny.
You are right, saying that rape jokes are ALWAYS FUNNY, and if you don't agree with that you should get raped by 5 people is EXACTLY THE SAME as yelling at an actress portraying a heckler to get raped. They are precisely the same, because the audience member is in on it, just like the paid actress was. The woman in the audience that Tosh went after was interupting ALL NIGHT LONG, until Tosh's comebacks escalated to a rape 'threat', EXACTLY like in the Louis CK situation. They are entirely comparable, and anyone that doesn't see it must be blind.
There IS context about what Daniel Tosh has said. No one said "this guy said rape, let's all hate him". They supplied the CONTEXT of the 'rape joke', and the joke, while perhaps not delivered exactly as he said it, does not to seem to be in any way funny. However, you have simply said "well, Louis CK said three offensive words in the same sentence, how can you defend him?" Umm, by actually discussiing the joke, in the context in which it was presented. Which is at the end of an ENTIRE bit in which he addresses each word individually, and talking about how he never really used them in their most offensive meaning. While his use of the f-word was still bad (using it as a perjorative, even if you don't intend it to have anything to do with homosexuality is still bad, as it's still mostly seen as another word for gay, and having the words 'gay' and 'lame' or 'bad', etc be synonymous is not a good thing). Of course, that's one of his older and eariler works.
Did you even READ what you are quoting? They don't hammer Louis CK, AND THEY DIDN'T HAMMER DANIEL TOSH EITHER, because those were not 'just' rape jokes, but it was telling an ACTUAL audience member (i.e. not an actor portraying an audience member) that she should be raped. The "Louis CK does it and no one complains" is a moot point because NO ONE COMPLAINED WHEN DANIEL TOSH DID IT IN THE PAST EITHER. He was given the same 'fair point' as Louis, because it was jokes about rape in a vaccum, not jokes about raping SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE. Not to mention, someone in the audience that already expressed that she was uncomfortable enough about the subject as to break the social contract and speak out during a show.
Good thing America doesn't hate gate people, treat women as if they shouldn't be in charge of their own uteri, put more stock in a holy book than all of science, etc, etc, etc.
Obviously, since I'm looking forward to the next season of the Harmon helmed Community, and another season of the hilarious and touching claymation series Moral Orel, both of which are still around, because this is the best alternate universe, I would have no reason to support these guys in making their own little Dr. Horrible-esque side project on the internet. However, for those in the reality where we don't have any new content coming down the pipe from Harmon, Dino or even Kaufman (that I know of, I don't have a google alert for new projects), I wouldn't mind seeing this. And the "asking for people to pay for it, and then asking them to pay to see it" only applies if someone pays less than 20 initially (in which case, they get to see it when it's made), and then buys it afterwards. I'm pretty sure they are going to get funded, so anyone that isn't going to pay enough to get the digital download or DVD or BluRay for free would be able to treat it as a 'normal' project, and just pay to see it or not. And, for people that DON'T want to see their work without having to corporate oversight, in fact you believe that it makes their work better ... well, you don't have to contribute. It's one of those whacky things ... the people that will give them money will be the people that DO want to see the project. It's like paying for your ticket ahead of time. While 50 or 60 would be a bit more than what would be spent on a DVD or BluRay respectively, it is sort of a premium cost to get a product that is, by it's nature, going to be a niche product anyway. I don't remember any angry blog posts about organic farmers charging people 3 times the price of a "normal" tomato because they dare to make it outside of the 'agro-industrial' system. Compared to the rest of the assoles we've seen this week, this is easily ignorable and benign. Some people will spend money they would have spent on something else equally shallow or silly or stupid, and they get to see something they may not have otherwise seen. While "famous" people using Kickstarter seems like a bit of a cheat (similar to the Kevin Smith 'method' for his release of Red State), but the only real problem is giving false hope to actual amateur film makers that somehow they can self-fund or crowdsource a major motion picture, without already building a large enough fan following that would make it viable.
When people confused what Nancy Grace does with being forthright?
Sometimes vigilante serial killers make mistakes.