*promote a *quality idea, and great evolution of their art form.
What they're doing now are masterpieces compared to the originals.

I've said it before, i'll say it again - all women films are fine, all women remakes are fine, but for god's sake let it not be this tokenistic gesture of bullshit.

This wasn't done because it was a good idea. How do i know? Because a ghostbuster remake at this point wasn't a good idea. If you think otherwise name the 4-person cast, women and/or men, that would make this a good idea.

We're not ready for a ghostbusters remake, but i imagine a lot of shrewd businessmen in hollywood saw a gilt-edged opportunity in the booming equality scene and Ghostbusters scripts were being floated at the time. Not done for any good reason; done for money. And now this will be cited as to why female led films don't succeed.

People so easily forget about the aliens franchise. Potentially one of the biggest franchises. All of them have been female led (Noomi Rapace, Sigourney Weaver, Winona Ryder) in a genre that is barren of other successful examples, and it was originally written for a man.

So - when decent people see the right actress for the right role performing quality material, you get successful female led films. You don't say "let's remake something but they're all women lol." It's something that natural and happens when those at the top are blind to gender - that's what you need to sort out, but they throw a few breadcrumbs "here, make a boil-in-the-bag all woman film" and we look the other way.

I feel lost in a world of extremes, where equality is that we split up and write ALL WOMEN films and ALL MEN films and never the twain shall meet, and we argue over which are more successful. I guess it's like our evolution through racism all over again; we're using segregation to solve an equality problem? And some who claim to be egalitarians cheer it on!

People need to adapt to the constant change of Climate evolution. Sounds like they need to move.

Good thing Trump let this false Fear monger go.

It's troubling to think that the only reason we are aren't diminutive eyeball monsters is due to a fluke of evolution.

Also, she is a dupe of this seemingly broken video.:

https://videosift.com/video/Portia-Spiders-Are-Capable-of-Learning-and-Problem-Solving

Global climate evolution. The earth is fine. IF you think this is man made fine . From this fine propaganda film the population will thin out and self correct itself. all is well.

No. YOU made the claim, it's up to YOU to back it up.

It's not about being "spoon fed", it's about the basic rules of debate. If a claim is made, unless the claim is either obvious (the sky is blue) or has a well-known body of evidence (evolution is real, climate change is man made, homoeopathy doesn't work) then the person making the claim needs to back it up.

The claim that "no white male police officer has ever been convicted of murdering a black male in america's entire history" fits neither of those criteria. It's not obvious, and there isn't well-known evidence for it.

So once again, you need to back up your claim.

Otherwise, it's hard to take you seriously in a discussion.

I know this is titled "Science in America", but what he's talking about is a global problem.

The whole "vaccines cause autism" nonsense was started in the UK. The Australian government is still willfully sticking its head in the sand regarding climate change. Only 8% of people in South Africa and Egypt accept that there is scientific evidence for evolution.

That said, it's worst in America, both in terms of degree (the number of people that don't accept science) and impact (the people in charge of the world's biggest economy are spending money on the wrong things).

Congratulations! Your video, Casually Explained: Evolution III - The Human Player Type, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 20 Badge!

Your video, Casually Explained: Evolution III - The Human Player Type, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Cool. Coming out of a baptist family I get it, even if i was never that extreme -- westboro... i knew some families sort of like them though... home schooled on the belief that the Bible is the ultimate framework for governing. Not too far off from the us versus them. Same family that taught an anti-evolution class for our youth group. *shudder*

I became an indignant atheist not long after leaving religion. Now, I embrace Took me many a long night hating on religious people.

Until I had a long conversation with a friend who was a microbiologist, observing evolution on a daily basis, and maintaining a healthy Christian perspective. (Well, at the time it was... now he is sort of Phelping me. It's really hard for me still, to accept religious people, even when almost everyone I know is -- many of whom will always judge me for who I am.)

I mostly enjoy the diversity among my Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu brothers and sisters. They just need to respect my beliefs and recognize that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me. Atheists are the worst at this.

As long as there is seperation of church and state. That is an important concept in maintaining a diverse nation open to dialog like she suggests.

Also, opening dialog with people only works if they reply back hahaha -- most of the angry internet people i know post across a wide array of websites and don't really return for replies that often.

@bcglorf
i have no issue with disagreement.
i have read many of hedges books,and to see his evolution over the years really should not surprise anyone.

we all have an evolution of sorts when we continue to investigate,and challenge our own preconceptions.the intelligent man or woman,will accept this new information,and change their conclusions accordingly.the hyper-partisan and/or rigid fundamentalist,will dismiss this new information because it conflicts with their dearly held preconceptions.

some people struggle with a changing landscape,and prefer to reside in their own comfort zones.

i like hedges because he challenges and criticizes power,but he also tends to speak in apocalyptic verbiage.

i also respect hedges because he does back up his opinions with actual sources.now we can disagree with his conclusions,but how he came to those conclusions,he is quite clear.

on a side note:i cannot watch or read hedges for extended periods due to the fact that what he is pointing out is so damn depressing.

but he is incredibly consistent in regards to criticizing power.

which,in my opinion,is so very vital in these times,because we see the majority of corporate media revealing a reverence and fealty to corporate power.

chris hedges has earned my respect.
but i do not demand that everyone read or listen to him.

and speaking only for myself,i refuse to dismiss a viewpoint simply because it may be on a venue of questionable intent.
i read the american conservative,though this is a website funded by pat buchanon.i do so because the american conservative produces some damn fine content,with journalists who source their material.

i may disagree with their conclusions,but i cannot ignore the quality of their work.

this is the same reason why i no longer do work for crooks and liars and the young turks and good god..SLATE.does this mean that everything they produce is utter shit?

no..of course not,but they all have taken a book out of the FOX model, and became hyper-partisan,faux outrage machines.

now let us take this video,which so happens to be on RT.
what is it that hedges is saying that is WRONG? or false? or a lie?

i have no issue with disagreement,nor skepticism,but is anything he is saying really that controversial?
what is he saying that should be dismissed?
should his words simply be dismissed due to him being on RT?

if we refuse to accept the words,or conclusions from any public personality,simply because of the media that they happen to be on,then..in my opinion..we relegate ourselves to a handful of outlets,and it diminishes the conversation.

is it any wonder or surprise that those academics that are critical of power are NEVER seen on corporate media?
that those brave and courageous journalists and academics are forced to the fringes in order to get their messages out.

we can disagree with their messages and conclusions,but for us to even have the OPTION to disagree.they need a media outlet in order to even put the word out.

do you see what i am saying?

i am probably wording this wrong,and producing more confusion than clarity,but when the corporate media controls who and what gets to be discussed,debated and argued.then THEY are the ones who set the agenda.they are the ones who set the lines of discussion and the parameters of that discussion.

and people like hedges have not been invited to the table for decades.

it appears that any journalist,or academic that is critical of power are relegated to the fringes.

you will never see noam chomsky on FOX,or MSNBC,or CNN.

but you will see them on independent media.
such as democracy now,or the real news and yes...venues like RT and aljazeera english.

i probably totally messed my point up,but it is in there somewhere.
i am just gonna stop right here,because now i am just rambling.

Of course they can't, because after a suitable period of mourning the troup attempted to eat the corpse. Hence the evolution of the phrase "waste not want not".

What he's talking about here is "cliche", but cliche's have themselves become so cliche, it's no longer effective to use that term to describe them.
This same phenomenon is found extremely widely in literature and music. I stumbled onto this following college, after being trained to have a critical eye for creative work, when I found myself hating everything that humans produced but not understanding why.
My personal theory is that 1) we've not yet learned to teach creators how to identify and cultivate truly unique ideas, and 2) the structure of our current systems for fostering creative work require said work to appeal fundamentally to the largest possible audience, which is easiest when a universal language (visual, auditory or written) exists.
We're trained to build on existing ideas, which is critical for success, but not how to reject established ideas and instead find new ones that are capable of maintaining familiarity, or communicating their core concepts without need of educating the audience.
It's an interesting evolution of process that I'm sure we can find in other areas of the human experience, beyond the field of creative media.

My long time issue with the "they would be too intelligent/evolved to have any interest in us" type scenario, such as he puts as number two here, is that we go through great lengths to try and research and understand very primitive life. There are efforts being made to talk to dolphins and apes. We're looking to build ships to crash or land ships onto Titan to see if there is microbial life on a moon orbiting a gas giant, not to mention work to see if Mars once upon had life. So the very fact we're able to get off our little rock (though not much off it), I think would warrant a stop and look, perhaps to help answer what was life like at such an early stage of evolution.

Not said stop and look doesn't imply any sort of communications. Indeed there may be a Prime Directive like thing with them where by they see and observe, but leave no evidence of such a visit (alien abductions being just mental illness coupled with abuse or other issues).

Now distance is a super valid point, but by far the most likely point is the survivability window, which he talks about in point three. We're still a level zero civilization (Kardashev scale) and decades until we reach a level one civilization (unfortunately it seems delayed even further due to some very anti-science moves being made by certain groups). Moving up that scale is only one thing, avoiding killing ourselves via war is another huge one. With CRISPR technology advancing, there is a very real danger of a Division/Stand/Utopia type disease coming to the foreground, especially if driven by a zealot (ala Division and Utopia). I highly doubt a man made black hole or something, but war or a CRISPR engineered disease... Not to mention the natural disasters he mentioned, and others, such as huge gamma ray bursts and others that we've managed to avoid. And we'd have to think that most civilizations go through somewhat similar phases, with a universe that is fairly hostile to life, even if many planets are capable of at least starting life. Generally I figure that most civilizations never make it past the stage we are at now, and those that do probably don't get to stage two and beyond (to be fair, I doubt any civilization can achieve stage two on Kardashev's scale as it goes beyond knowledge needed, but materials and more).

Back to the technology of communications point. I've generally figured if you are space faring, you gave up on radio communications and are using strange properties or something along those lines.

I seriously doubt this is a new development. It's a pretty obvious evolution of the totally fictional statistics reported by the military as far back as Viet Nam.