The thing with free speech is ... one person (unless that person runs Comedy Central, or is one of their biggest sponsors, or higher up in Viacom, etc) isn't going to single handedly ruin someone's carreer. It takes a lot of small voices to drown out a 'big' voice. So it's not about willingness to ruin someone's career. Mel Gibson still gets work, even if he hasn't been that busy as of late (admitedly, he wasn't that busy before the outbursts, plural).
As for the whole act of good faith/apology/etc thing ... well, that's the nice thing about public stuff. He CAN use the same fame/publicity/news thing that made this a big deal and try and counter the bad publicity he's acrued. He can try and work to counter the tide. Some people will think it's enough, others may not. However, he has the ability and the right to try to fight it out in the court of public opinion.
He's not some sort of victim here. He's getting backlash to things he said, things which he'd have to be an idiot not to realize had the potential of receiving backlash. He's "sorry" that it left the comedy club and got out to a broader audience.
I think the worst part was "generate information for ratings". It's one thing to accuse someone of deciding "today I am going to reveal this true fact about myself, in order to get more attention". However, the use of the word generate seems to imply that AC is only claming to be gay, or that Oprah made up her crack smoking, just to reveal something shocking to the public.
To imply that they 'overshared' in an attempt to garner attention is one thing, but to imply they are making shit up is another step altogether. She may not have picked her words properly, but that is probably the worst part of her statement.
It would reduce crime in the 'simplest' sense, that you aren't charging, arresting, and jailing a bunch of people for possession. In the long term, many people that leave jail become repeat offenders, even if the 'first' time was just possession. Similarly, as was the case with prohibition, the crimes associated with the business of selling and distributing something illegal to 'buy' or 'own' is more than just a bunch of possession and distribution charges. Something illegal is unregulated and lucrative, and thus you have turf wars, assassinations, illegal guns, theft, robbery, etc, etc, etc. The usage of pot doesn't seem to lead to criminal activity, outside of the crimes involving the pot being illegal in the first place. However, having pot illegal, creates a number of side crimes in order to protect the growing/distribution wings of a lucrative business that cannot use legal means to protect themselves.
Have him publically shamed, because freedom of speech comes with the side effect of everyone else being able to freely and publicall speak about how much of an asshole you are because of what you said. Perhaps the backlash would be loud and large enough that his Comedy Central job is lost.
No one is saying that HE should be taken out into the streets and raped, regardless of how karmically appropriate, ironic, poetic, or otherwise 'funny' (in a not really funny, but one of those sort of interesting ways that things turn out) it would be.
However, he is not that funny, stupid and offensive ... and many shows have been cancelled for less. Not talking about it means giving him the right to say whatever the hell he wants, with a much larger audience because people pay to see him, and he gets paid to be on TV, while the offended parties, who have a fraction of the 'broadcast range' he has, are the ones that are basically being told to shut up about it. If no one can actually stop Tosh from talking, then no one can really stop people from talking about the stupid shit he is saying. The best case scenario, is enough people hear about this and he is somehow punished for it professionally. Maybe even personally, if some woman he's dating, engaged to, married to, etc (I have no idea about his private life) gets offended enough, but if that's enough to destroy a relationship, there was likely other problems there anyway.
Most people already agree that he is a terrible comedian, in part because his MAIN contribution to 'comedy' is the YouTube version of America's Funnest Home Video.
Louis CK, on the other hand, has not only done great stand up work, but been involved in writing many quality films and tv series. His latest series, Louie, isn't even a 'comedy' in a traditional sense. It goes much further than a sitcom, and goes into uncomfortable areas that would otherwise label the show a drama. And Louis CK doesn't go out and berate people for being uncomfortable about aspects of hs FX show, he doesn't say "you should be laughing now" (hell, most people on videogum have a disdain for laugh track based sitcoms, which goads instead of bullying).
While the argument of whether or not ANY rape joke is "funny", or whether or not a comedian should "get a pass" on using rape jokes is one that could be made, there is still the massive difference that this wasn't "a" rape joke. It was a bit about how funny rape jokes are (so, it's not just a case of a rape joke, but a DEFENSE of rape jokes), which was followed by more 'jokes' about 'raping' the person in the audience that dared to question the premise that rape jokes are ALWAYS funny.
It isn't a case of "why is it ok for Louis CK to use the n-word, but Michael Richards gets in a bunch of crap about it". One rape joke does not equate to a defence of rape jokes followed by a "it would be funny if the audience raped you now" musing used against someone that was already disturbed enough about the rape jokes to speak up about it.
The context is listed in the blog post. He was talking about rape jokes being funny, the woman said she didn't think so, and he said "it would be funny if she got raped right now". [Admitedly, it would be what some might label 'ironic' if she were to get raped by the audience at that point, but not actually funny". However, basically implying "hey audience, you should rape her, that would be funny" is pretty clear regardless of context (which WAS provided). We don't know how he got to the point where he started talking about rape jokes in the first place, but we do know where his 'retaliation' against the 'heckler' came from.
And, the argument that Daniel was making is that rape jokes are ALWAYS funny, and that rape jokes are thus inherently funny ... as opposed to someone like Louis CK or George Carlin who may argue that anything 'can' be funny, you just have to find the way to do it. Also, much of what happens on the show Louie isn't meant to be 'funny' in a traditional sense. A lot of it is deeply awkward, or horrifyingly real, or tragically sad. An example of 'someone else said it, so it must be cool', isn't enough. Just because, for example, some people feel that the rape scene in Girl with a Dragon Tatoo was powerfully done, and warranted, etc ... doesn't mean that EVERY rape scene in EVERY movie is non-exploitative and necessary. The "Grapist" sketch from Mr. Show does not make bad rape jokes funny or acceptable either.
Generally, god falls into the realm of metaphysics. By definition, any god or godlike being has to predate the universe (therefore both time and space), and thus exists (or existed) outside of the universe. Having no knowledge of what is outside the universe, or any of the laws that would apply (we only know the laws that govern this universe because we live in it and can thus experiment to figure them out), it's pretty much impossible to make any substantial guess as to what is outside our own universe.
The best we can do is what we do with things that are impossible to see normally. Many of the smallest particles we only know about because we are able to predict that if these things existed or didn't existed, we'd get different outcomes in experiments, and thus things like the Higgs Boson are discovered. So, the existence of god would have to be predicated on what kind of effect they have on our universe. While it would be nearly impossible to cover something as vague as "any possible god" in terms of existence, it could be possible to do specific instances, since something like the Judeo-Christian God has a book that points out specific types of divine intervention. In general though, it would seem that divine intervention would be a case of some kind of superceding of normal laws of physics and the like. Now, due to scientific rigor, it's quite possible that 'miracles' would be chalked up to experimental error, or otherwise would be rare enough to not skew results enough to be statistically significant, or could possibly be offset the otherway to fix the stats, and thus qualify for the 'mysterious ways' label. Ultimately, most of it comes down to a case of "there is no way to test, and no way to predict". It's hypothetically possible for there to be proof of divine intervention just by having the basic laws of physics breaking down, but for the most part, if there 'is' a god, they are subtle enough that any evidence is indistinguishable from things operating as normal, both in terms of followng cause-effect, the laws of physics, and statistically within the predicted probabilities.
Aliens may be a better analogy than Big Foot. It's quite possible, especially base on our own science and knowledge of the universe (speed of light, etc) that, were there aliens more advanced than us, we probably would never meet or know about them, since there needs to be a lot more advancement needed before long distance travel or communication would be practical. So, it's possible to believe in aliens, and a complete lack of evidence or way to test for that evidence wouldn't shake it. There are some differences though. It's easier for there to be 'proof' (it's just unlikely we'd find proof, even if aliens exist). Also, the existence of aliens is based on a logical inference ... life exists on earth, and evolved into an intelligent species. If there are a number of Earth-like planets (which seems to be the case based on current evidence), some would probably also have life, and some could evolve intelligent life at some point. The logical jump of "similar conditions might have similar results" is smaller than guessing there is something that exists outside of time and space.
There are "evangelical" atheists. However, having SOME aspects of a religion does not make them a religion. There are no rituals, no dogma, no core document, no place of worship. It begins and ends with "there is no god". Everything else is just other stuff. Science, ethics, charity, philosophy, etc, etc, etc ... those things may be touched by the atheism in that they are OFTEN framed in a religious context by religious people, but they are there own things. An agnostic, or even a religious person, can still use the same philosophy, science, etc as an atheist. The concept of secularism, or that the existence (or non-existence) of god is often irrelevant to science, as it's mostly just an explanation without much predictive benefit.
Of course, most atheists would probably gladly 'accept' the religion label if they were given tax exempt status.
As an aside, atheism/agnosticism is often tied into a rejection of organized religion. I'm a atheist leaning agnostic. Basically, "if" there is a god, its nothing like organized religions believe it to be, and the difference between a non-existent god and a non-interventionist god that we seem to have isn't really relevant in the grand scheme of things.
To be fair, they didn't just say clean and moral ... they said morally straight. You can be morally gay, but that's just not what the scouts are looking for. (Bad pun, I know)
Mostly though, the constitution is mostly about what the government can or cannot do. The government can't discriminate based on homosexuality ... but the Scouts aren't a government institution, so the questions becomes "can the government force this organization to allow certain people". That is one of those iffier things. There are still guys like Ron Paul saying they should have let the 'free market' deal with private businesses that didn't want to go along with desegregation. You'll see most supreme court decisions have the conservatives go along with that interpretation "freedom means do whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want" ... see also "your boss can tell you to pay for your own contraception" stuff.
One Million Moms. The group that got so many people mocking them on facebook for their anti-Gay Lantern stance, they up and left the internet for a little while. (They went on a 'retreat', so no one could maintain the page ... apparently all 'million' of them were on the retreat). They don't so much lift boycotts as wait until no one is paying attention before coming up with something new to complain about.
Honestly? It's the summer, there is not that much on, so I'll keep watching. If it gets to be a hassle I'll stop, but for now, it seems like it will be something that will fill time nicely.
It depeds. Tolkien started 'dwarves', before that it was 'dwarfs'. Now the accepted difference is that 'dwarves' are the guys in Snow White, Lord of the Rings, D&D, etc ... while dwarfs would be 'little people' as the current PC term is (as in Tyrion, of Game of Thrones, is a 'dwarf' as in a small human, instead of a dwarf, as in a race of bearded miners.) Also there are stuff like dwarf stars which would be dwarfs, not dwarves.
We have too much great stuff already. I mean, quit it with all the really good television and movies guy. We need to get to work on making adaptations of board games, continuously revamping franchises to make sure the studio keeps the rights to churning out tons more of those franchises, etc. Obviously, the biggest problem with Hollywood is all these films that give a coda to great TV shows, and is the worst thing about movies right now. If only we get rid of those, we could have more great stuff like Battleship and What To Expect.
It's one thing if the show gets to leave on it's own terms, but if it doesn't, they should get a chance to at least wrap up the way they wanted to. Let them know their SEASON finale is going to be the SERIES finale. Otherwise, let people bitch and complain until they DO have a real SERIES finale.
So, in terms of Arrested Development, I'm 'ok' with it being over. They didn't get to everything they wanted, but they at least did wrap up with a bookend of the first episode. I'll still watch the HELL out of the extra season and movie coming out, but I won't be heart broken if it doesn't happen. Similarly, I'm glad they made a Serenity movie.
But, Community? At least tell them at the start of the season it's going to end, and they can come up with an ending. The lack of closure is part of the problem.
Also, again, if crap can go on forever, why not have great shows go on forever. As much as people 'hate' Simpsons now, it's still better than a lot of crap that is on TV. Getting rid of it, just because some time frame has passed and we need to move on, would be fine, IF (a) this applied to everything (like say, maybe American Idol and Dancing With the Stars should go out on top, instead of going on for far too long) and (b) they actually give NEW shows a chance to find their audience ... the same way shows like Simpsons and Seinfeld did before they went on for 'too long'.
If they are going to kill good shows before they find an audience, we don't need them ALSO killing shows just after they peak, because then all we'll be left with is crap that appeals to the lowest common denominator, because anything that doesn't immediately get an audience will go away, and anything of quality will inevitably dip and be unfavorably compared to it's own greatness instead of the rest of the crap it's actually aired against.
Also, Jesus was very shy about being huge and bald, so asked that anyone wrting about him not bring it up. Luckily no one bothered to start painting him until he was long dead, and then they basically just made up how he looked like, mostly making sure he looked like the people they were trying to covert at the time.
They say he has no soul and can't feel. The same people that just casually say "well obviously these aliens we never met made us" and "well, they'll be able to tell us why" and "they'll tell us how to live forever, etc". The people saying he has no soul are the same STUPID people who get nearly everyone killed on this mission. And their assertition that he has no soul seems to be just as 'because we say so' as anything else. Hell, they make a very clear parallel about how the Engineers created humanity and humanity created David. Also, they show that, while it's possible that David lacks certain emotions (he is quite sociopathic), he is definitely 'more' than just a robot. Why bother spying on people's dreams? Why bother with Laurence of Arabia?
Ultimately, the 'getting back at them' thing is more likely just a screw you to the old man. Just like the daughter just wanted her daddy to die, so too did David, especially since pops is so willing to just throw out how souless and inhuman David is. Or, vindictiveness aside, David is at the very least curious. Curiosity is pretty much an inate property of AI, since the whole concept of AI is built around learning without needing to be programmed. So, this curiosity is "what does this goo do?" or "what would a gooman baby be?" and so it's not malicious as much as uncaring about the effect it has on the other parts of the crew. His genuine curiosity, free of any soul, ethics or care, is a perfect reflection of the general theme of the Alien movies. "Just because we can doesn't mean we should" could be the tagline of all the Alien movies, and thus, David's curiosity at all costs fits into that. The inclusion of OldManMakeUp does force him to curb his curiosity, but his actions are likely motivated by the one human trait he's allowed to have.
The guy that got sick (and transfered something via his sperm) got the 'pure' goo. In that case, the goo wasn't bonding with the guy, but with stuff inside his body (like his sperm, and probably bacteria, etc) That made him sick (similarly, it made the head explode). Of the two guys attacked by the snakes, one just outrighted died, and the other came back as a crab guy. Neither one 'just' swallowed some goo, they had a snake go down their throat. Similarly, the squid wasn't just a 'person with good in them', it was sort of a 'second gen' creature created by a good creature. That, in turn, created a proto-alien as a 'third gen' creature.
However, the thing is, there are some weird anomalies. While it 'seems' like this could be explaining the evolution of the aliens (as we sort of see the process by which the goo become something resembling a Xenomorph by the end of the movie), there is the whole issue of the shrine to what looks like an Alien Queen already existing inside the 'jar + giant head' room. Also, there is some weird issues with this ship and moon/planet not being the SAME ship/moon/planet from Alien (and Aliens). So, it's possible that the Engineers found the Xenomorphs and the good is a result of reverse engineering them.
Also, I'm not entirely sure what was happening in the opening scene, but it almost seems like the goo was being used to rip apart Engineer DNA and somehow that was how the Engineers 'created' humanity?
I can only assume that David and/or Weyland suspected (at that time) that the goo may not be parasitic. If the goo (which they have a ton of) was some kind of preservative or could extend life, they'd need to test it on someone first.
While there was a lot of assumptions made by the crew, it was made pretty clear that no one really knew what the hell they were talking about. However, they did know the ship filled with evil space goo had Earth as coordinates. So whether they WANTED to destroy Earth or not ... they still had a ship full of stuff that could probably wipe out life on Earth.
It's not exactly a good movie, but there is some interesting stuff there. Maybe a Director's Cut is able to present the ideas in a more cohesive way, instead of the clunky way it was here.
free refills would make the point moot ... until you leave. In the case of a fast food place, a lot of people refill before they leave, so that's at least cutting down on that last little bit. And some people will finish their drink, no matter what, because of the whole "children in Africa" programming of needing to finish everything in front of you. In the theatre, most people would be unlikely to want to go back to refill every 30 minutes.
The fact that it doesn't apply to convenience stores means it's unlikely to have a huge impact, but the theatre part of the ban might have the most impact.
[In terms of buying multiple sodas ... as a solution for the theatre that could work, but it's hard enough juggling a drink and popcorn while trying to handing your ticket to the ripper, that adding another soda wouldn't be easy].
Britta and Annie both have aspects of Jessie. Annie is the brainy pill head (I'm so excited!) while Britta is the insuferable 'cause' person. So they are both Jessie when they aren't just being Jeff's "love interest" when they are both being Kelly.
The bastard and friends did it fits. Basically, as has been shown by both Theon taking and losing Winterfell ... it's not exactly easy to keep control of a massive castle with a small force. So, Bastard goes back to his smaller castle which he can easily keep staffed and defended. And, if you are going to leave Winterfell abandoned, you should take everything of value and burn the rest, so other people can't take it over, etc.
Most of the the important clue things are repeated a million times in the book, so it goes from foreshadowing into outright taunting. The dragon has three heads is important ... because she has three dragons, and the things related to that.
I'm sure he could have said to his mother "I'll just have this girl on the side, maybe my Frey wife can help raise my bastard son, just like you did with Jon. I know how much you LOVED doing that ..."
Ask the book readers that have to wait at least a decade between each book, especially when "oh there is too much stuff, that's going to be two books now" gets announced. I'm eagerly waiting for the season when we get to the events of the most recent book.
According to the writer, while he was working on the reboot, he was sort of upset by the fact that Obsidian was gone (mostly because Alan and the rest are now a lot younger, basically 20 somethings instead of being that age in WWII), and that sort of led him to "why can't Alan be gay?" So, he pitched it, they accepted it. Then later, the big honcho (Didio) made an off hand comment (probably when someone asked about diversity) that there was going to be a character reintroduced and would be gay now. The press sort of made the big deal about it, and had like tons of stories trying to parse the few 'statements' that DC made about "who is it going to be?" and stuff like that.
Mostly, the Earth 2 JSA were made in the 1940's, so all the characters were straight white guys, with a couple token ladies thrown in the mix. So, since they are starting over, they are going to change some genders, change some people to be non-white, etc, because why not? No one really "grew up" with the JSA, since they've never had cartoons or movies based on them. Of the people they can really change (since they are already taking them out of World War II and deaging them by about 50 years) they shouldn't have a ton of people that don't read comics complaining about ruining 'their favorite character', despite the fact they would never buy a comic with that character in it regardless of the changes to it.
They are very willing to show characters die in horrible ways on screen (or at least, make it very clear when someone dies). If the book, or the show, is cute with not showing a death, there is a good chance that someone isn't really dead. They may pay a heavy price for cheating death, but character death is mostly a case of "show don't tell".
Comments