@Babymech
jesus holy christ...

were you truly unable to discern my tongue firmly planted in cheek?

and then take issue with pay gap discrimination?
ok-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

/cue rainbow

which you may take issue that i used wiki as a reference,which is pretty much your counter-position to my links.

which is just utter weak sauce.

oh that study was by a conservative think tank and therefore they have an "agenda".nevermind that christina hoff sommers is a feminist,nevermind that you didnt refute the numbers..lets just stick with "agenda" to refute any and all statistics that do not coincide with your narrative.

should i gather by implication that christian hoff sommers is not a feminsist?even though she identifies as one? or is she just the "wrong" kind of feminist?

come on man,are you really that blinded by your own bullshit?

and then you proudly attempted to dissect the rest of my comment taking positions i never took,but was rather using to express that in much of our dialogue..i was fucking agreeing with you.

you literally wrote one big,massive and utterly useless straw man.while i was actually trying to have a conversation.i may have indulged in some smart assery but that is mainly due to my perception of you.that i respected you enough not to treat you like a precious little flower or some fragile snowflake.

maybe you see this is as a right/wrong dynamic.

but here is the cold,hard truth:context matters.
and if you insist on viewing this situation in such a narrow and myopic way,the larger context will ALWAYS be unavailable to you.

so until you are ready to evaluate,without bias,new information.that may possibly contradict your current narrative,then you will always be stuck in your own self-delusion.

you were challenged.
your response was lack luster and a straw man.
and i can only assume by your words that any contrary evidence or contradictory opinions that may conflict with your own will be met with similar straw men,presumptions,deflecting and goal post moving.

because if ya cant beat em,
berate and belittle them.

rarely have a found a conservative that i find entertaining,while making valid points,and this guy milo does just that.

i was put off by the breitbart affiliation,but i am glad i gave this guy a chance.

he is a self-proclaimed provocateur,conservative and cultural libertarian.he is also a gay christian,,which just seems like an oxymoron.

i may try later to introduce the sift to his distinctive brand of dialogue.

he is very smart and reminds me of a mix of hitchens and gore vidal,but a conservative.

Many self professed feminists believe it is about hating men too, but I assume "no true feminist" would ever do that right?

I wasn't trying to wilfully misunderstand you, but rather to pursue my whole contention about any political/social argument:

Individual People and specific arguments over ideologies always.

When the reverse is true and ideology is placed before people or the specific merits of an argument, the result is dehumanising and anti-intellectual (even if by the slimmest margins sometimes).

That's not to say that, where mutual understanding already exists, ideological terms are completely useless. But the moment individuals disagree, those ideological assumptions are going to get in the way of a productive dialogue.

My whole point I guess is that this seems rather anti-humanist if you will pardon the irony of taking an ideological position.
If as a humanist one believes that the optimal way is for everyone to be judged only on the merits of their individual words, deeds and capacity.

Rather than by culture, race, gender or some other involuntary and/or irrelevant factors.

Assuming you agree in principle with that definition of humanism in terms of goals, then what we are arguing here really is collectivism vs individualism.

You are suggesting we can get better results by pushing the "right" version of said ideology and suppressing the "wrong", correct?

I am arguing ultimately that we seem to get better results in the long term, by encouraging free and critical thought and allowing all ideas (no matter how egregious) a fair fight.

This puts me contrary to many tenets of the various feminist ideologies and concordant with others. Sometimes wildly so.

If I want to try to be a good humanist, I have no choice but to try and understand each on their own terms.

When someone describes themselves as a "Feminist", that could mean anything from "kill all men" to "women should have fundamental legal equality".

It seems almost as redundant as racial and cultural epithets, it tells me very little really important about you or how you really think, to know you are Black, or White or Asian or Polish, Spanish etc. etc. It's just another excuse to put an idea above the person in front of you or to not have to think too much about ones own.

i.e. Collectivist thinking.

I think this may represent the very antithesis of intellectual progress.

However I am a Hegelian and I just defined a Thesis-antithesis relationship............ That means the next great breakthrough should lie in the synthesis of the two.......

................

Collective individualism! All we should need is a mass movement of free critical thought and.....bollocks.

It's over people, we have officially peaked as a species! I'm calling it

Seems to me the word 'feminist' has been so trashed, hijacked and hard to know what it means by any particular person who uses it(unless you personally know that person). It's just sooo loaded with meaning beyond definition these days. The word often poisons meaningful dialogue of issues due to how it's perceived by different people. Seems to me anytime you create a word to define a group it gets misused and or hijacked and has its meaning twisted (pc/ sjw/ socialist/ truther/ environmentalist/ etc.).

More about particular issues. Less about particular groups (which this video is part of).

Jesus fucking christ, how did this abortion ever get green lit?

Way to completely and utterly miss the point of a franchise.

What's next? The next Raid to be a slow-paced, dialogue heavy introspection into the nuances of Indonesian geopolitics?
Does the drummer in Whiplash 2 join a metal band?

Every single thing about this is just stupid, from the soundtrack* to the lame attempt to give Chris Pine Kirks haircut. Fuck, I haven't even mentioned anything about the direction or the story yet.

@CrushBug, don't take this personally, but if there was a way to unpromote or anti-quality I would use every single point I earned on this abomination.

Look, if you want to make an awesome action movie in space with a kick arse soundtrack, great! Sign me the fuck up for that one. In fact, I watched it last year, it was called Guardians of the Galaxy and I loved it.

But that's not what Star Trek is about. Why would you even bother spending money on the licence? It's not that you can't even make a great Trek movie with decent action beats (First Contact nailed both), but Star Trek is supposed to be a tiny bit more thoughtful.

Fuck everything about this.


* I love the Beastie Boys and Sabotage is a great song, but it fits Star Trek about as well as smooth jazz would fit the next Avengers.

Writing: All of these shows are what we might call 'clever,' which is generally a big selling point for me. Unexpected, heavily layered, structurally complex writing for comedic effect - a lot of recursive, iteratively growing humor. They're all also quite big on dialogue, and are comparatively 'dark'.

Themes: All of them also feature self-destructive and dysfunctional characters, to different degrees. In addition to this:

Rick & Morty: Does brilliant deconstruction of science fiction concepts without a condescending outside perspective. An amazing example is (spoilers) the time that Rick makes Cronenbergs of the entire global population, or the time that Morty's indecisiveness creates split quantum timelines.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5A5Mb__fiA

Always Sunny: Never shies away from exploring the darkest consequences of its incredibly self-absorbed, idiotic, low attention span, high energy, self-destructive cast.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_49P1RtqU0

Arrested Development: ...I'm not good at writing these synopses; I just wanted to see if I could figure out why I love these shows so much. Anyway, Arrested Development is the most heavily layered of all of them, so in just a few episodes it builds up an incredible library of call-backs, double meanings, etc. It's also less abrasive than the other two, if you have something against offensive shows.

...I don't know if there any good example scenes. You should just watch it.

At around 5:30 the dialogue cuts off, wtf?

So, paid a fortune to repeat lines written for you, but add a line out of your own head and WOW, you're an improvising genius? Well, I guess that makes all of us in the "real" world geniuses. Our dialogue isn't scripted, we have to improvise every time we open our mouths.

I honestly don't understand your point about Cindy. I don't get the feeling that she is dancing off the pounds. This feels like a BBW jerk off vid. They do exist.

If she is celebrating her own sexuality, good for her.

As for your claim that I am blind to representations of women in the media, you have said that to me before. You were wrong before, you are wrong now. There are numerous studies that show that women are underrepresented in the media. There are numerous studies proving that women's movie and TV careers are severely circumscribed when they reach a certain age. Without breaking a sweat, I can name a dozen sitcoms starring fat men with slender to average wives and two that star(red) women of size -- Roseanne and Mike and Molly. And this just sitcoms.

I know there is nothing I can say about this subject, because I believe you to be willfully blind about the facts.

And yes, as I always do, I acknowledge that the unreasonable standards of beauty that women are held to is happening more and more to men. I do not think that is a good thing. It is a spreading cancer. Ignoring that is happens to women doesn't stop it happening to men.

And I hate Magic Mike I and II. Stupid plot, stupid dialogue, boring as shit and not enough dancing . The Full Monty now? OH yeah! Fat blokes, skinny blokes, gay blokes, old blokes, ginger blokes..... That is a movie that celebrates life and interpersonal relationships.

In America they would just scream at each other and call names me thinks. This type of dialogue is more my speed.

@bobknight33
here is what i don't get about you or lantern:
1.you state that you are a conservative with a "tea party" flavor to your politics,
YET...
you consistently defend the power of the state to authorize our ever-increasing militarized police force to engage in violence and brutality which often leads to the death of a citizen,often with impunity (such as this case).

this is neither conservative nor tea party,it is fascist.

2.many of your arguments point to obeying a lawful order,be polite and respectful and much of the brutality and violence would end.on this point i totally agree,
BUT....
you totally ignore how "equal under law" has been perverted to only serve the elite and those who can "pay for justice" and how the system of "justice" has been corrupted to target minorities and the economically insolvent (poor) and feed them into the largest prison system on the planet.

they are commodifying the poor,blacks,latinos in the name of profit,all for the same elitist fucknozzles who perpetrated fraud,theft and outright lies,walking away with trillions of our money and not a single indictment.(check that,ONE indictment of a low level banker..whoopdy-shit).

yet i see you consistently BLAME the poor,black and latino.

this is not conservative nor tea party....it is racist.

3.many of your posts deal with a corrupt government.how it is bloated and inefficient.you decry the 'welfare/nanny state" and the horrible misappropriation of funds.

this is a typical,and necessary argument.that is the way of political dialogue and while i am not debating here the finer points nor the validity of your position,i am,however,saying the discussion is a necessary one to engage in.

however,

you,almost without fail,disregard and will actually DEFEND:police brutality and military action on foreign soil.yet BOTH of these institutions are exclusively government controlled,operated and executed.(which is why many of lanterns posts make me laugh).

this is not conservative nor tea party ......... it is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

my point is:
your arguments and positions are not philosophically harmonious.
they are in direct opposition.your posted philosophies are a direct contradiction to what you espouse.

here is an example of late:
@newtboy tends to post cops behaving badly videos.
you will chime in,almost always,siding with the cop (in one fashion or another).
newtboy will make an argument about exercising your rights.the rights as a citizen in a situation with a representative of the state..
AND YOU WILL ARGUE WITH HIM.

in that instance..newtboy is more a tea party conservative than you are bob.

think about that for a moment bob....
newt is MORE of a patriot and constitutionalist than YOU are.
maybe you are just being a contrarian?
maybe just a bit of trolling?

but...in the end,your arguments make no sense due to their contradictory nature.
you can't be for a smaller,more accountable government and then look the other way when that very same government is over-stepping it's lawful directives.

Great, I'll never ever be able to fold a paperplane again without feeling stupid.

Also: 'Here's the tower and here's the flower' could be a line of dialogue from the most poetic porno in existence.

@947bis - that nearly brought a tear to my eye and explains EXACTLY why i was disappointed with Fallout 3. Or better to say, disappointed that it was given the label of Fallout instead of something like "Post Apocalyptic RPG".

FO3 had no subtlety. Sometimes you'd make decisions in Fallout 1&2 that you'd not even realised you'd made. Or chosen a dialogue option that you had no idea would affect how the game played out. There were multiple options to solve "quests" (there was no formal quest log) that would significantly alter the state of the rest of the game - what bases and equipment you had access to, and how you could ultimately finish the game. You could sneak into places, or disguise yourself and walk in, lie your way past NPCs, demolish your way in, then ultimately sabotage their base or fix it for them, ruin a gang's drug and slave trade, have sex with a crime boss's wife (or daughter if you preferred) and rob their safe before sneaking or shooting your way back out - and then the rival family would love you! It's as though the money they saved on not having voice actors for *every* NPC or graphical wizardry was spent on designing interesting, intertwined and thoughtful characters and situations, which were more fulfilling despite being a text only deal.

Fallout had so much character and charm and personality... It was genuinely funny and involved - in every area there would be many storylines that could affect each other directly and change the story, or change your reputation in the wasteland and affect your options elsewhere. FO3 feels cold and dead by comparison. In FO3, the decisions you make give the illusion of depth, when in actual fact only a small number of "decisions" affected the game at all, and even then, the consequences were not surprising or not impactful to the same degree.

God, i wish i could bottle the feeling of playing Fallout 1&2 back in the day.. i wish i could explain it to you young whippersnappers!

I think that's what all After Hours episodes are, compressing a handful of cracked articles from the last few years into witty dialogue. But it works, I think I'd rather digest it this way.

I hear your frustration - that is coming through loud and clear.

I've seen Bob make comments that are out of line - I have also seen him just share his perspective and opinion. Granted it is very different than my own or yours and generally not well represented on these forums.

Goading him isn't helpful. It won't serve you or him at all.

Consider that you could have a good open dialogue with someone you fundamentally disagree with and gain valuable insight into why he thinks the way he does. He may, in turn, begin to understand the way you think. That doesn't mean that either of you will change your opinions, but you both may understand the issue(s) from a different perspective. Most importantly, you may find common ground.