• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Castel

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,849 profile views
  1. HBO's Westworld(v4)- What door? [spoilers]

    Having programmed responses doesn't necessarily stop you from being conscious or Dolores wouldn't count cause she couldn't kill old William. But, putting that aside, If she was merely following a script she would have left as the next function on her screen said "infiltrate mainland" so... probably not. I think we're supposed to think she was conscious but with programmed moves and then setting her own path after the whole train thing.
  2. HBO's Westworld(v4)- What door? [spoilers]

    Which I think is a neat way to resolve the fact that having Ford responsible for all her actions would be pretty shitty ,considering her arc was about freedom.
  3. HBO's Westworld(v4)- What door? [spoilers]

    The metajourney is not without its own appeal and fun. It's been insane watching what people will dig up. The MiB thing is a bit like discovering R+L=J , except less central and over less time. I read with that in mind and it was still great.
  4. HBO's Westworld(v4)- What door? [spoilers]

    It's amazing how industruious they've been. I don't know that I agree that this sort of crowdsourcing hurts the product as some have said. I saw most of the theories and the ones that ended up being true and the final product was still amazing.
  5. HBO's Westworld(v4)- What door? [spoilers]

    Goddamn. I guess everyone on the chessmaster Ford was right. He reminds me of Castro in World War Z in that he had the utter unmitigated gall to be on the right side of every coming wave I had seen the theory of Dolores being Wyatt but totally missed connecting it to Arnold's death. I also thought they wouldn't have him be behind Maeve but apparently not. I was also totally wrong on MiB and his motivations too. Interesting to see if he comes back. He really has nowhere to go. He can't chase the maze nor can he join the hosts and he's just a weak old executive, I don't expect him to be fighting hosts on an even keel.
  6. We were having this discussion recently on elite control in political parties too: in theory I don't want three news networks to shape everything, anymore than I want nominees chosen in a smoky back room. But I simply don't trust a lot of the media that's risen up triumphantly crowing about the death of the traditional media. They cause their own set of problems, with their own sensitivity to ideologues and subscribers or people tailormade for their message. I simply don't trust that it'll work out. As for the authorities on the alt-right: the alt-right isn't even the thing. The powers that be are incapable of reining in weird political outliers like Trump for a variety of reasons and not just cause they sympathize with the alt-right. They not only have no way to control the narrative they have undermined the media amongst their voters (putting aside that the media fucks up a lot in their coverage) to the point where there seems to be no way to hit the brakes on a disaster. They didn't fail to stop him cause they sympathized with the alt-right but because they apparently can't talk their people down. To some this might be a good thing, it opens the door for populist candidates like Bernie Sanders regardless of what the establishment thinks. To some of us it opened the door for Trump, which is pretty bad. But I guess it depends on how you weigh the risk or how you see Trump, as a candidate. To me the problem with the US is that there are only two parties and everyone is wedded to them, so this becomes far more dangerous than if a single party in a multiparty system goes crazy. They nominate someone crazy and then you just lock them in a room and someone else steals their votes.In the US half the country falls in line, so it's a problem.
  7. It's cause a bunch of ideologues really do operate under the assumption that truth shines, and they obviously have the truth so more information in tubes somewhere==good. Frankly, I have not been convinced at all by the gleeful celebrations over the death of the traditional media all sides of the internet circlejerk seem to share. All of them seem to have their problems, just with more smugness over having "solved" the problem of cable news or whatever. They seem just as subject to their own set of biases and problems.
  8. I don't really even know that it matters that it's not new. The sharing of information and networking is not new but that doesn't keep the internet from being a novelty in degree. As for people being challenged on views: well, yes, people can always have echo chambers. But we have to look at who is reacting.It's people disillusioned with the dream of the internet and looking back to some supposedly better time when there were three networks or something.Might be incredibly rose-tinted but that seems to be what they see. I think it's possible (though not necessarily correct) to argue that, back when news was more less crowded and didn't have its lunch being eaten by just about every site online,real or fake, people did have to contend with the fact that those places would have a lot more power to shape the discourse. Now the media finds it much harder to do that. A story can gain legs online regardless of what CNN says. I believe that's where people are coming from. It's not so much that humans haven't always had an inclination towards cliquishness and filtering for things that validate their opinion, but if everyone is consuming the same mass media (rather than getting more and more focused on tailored news) other positions will at least have to filter through a bit. Of course, if you're near the ends of the spectrum I doubt you're that impressed with the idea.
  9. It really seems more intuitive to me, but I guess his is a better explanation for aiming at certain people. It does seem like people much prefer the "outrage culture" reasoning when it involves stereotypically leftist (although obviously some conservative could easily ask for compassion and understanding) responses.
  10. People have always enjoyed some manner of vindictiveness, especially against criminals and terrorists. Rape jokes about criminals for example are just taken for granted, and people poured all sorts of hate on Casey Anthony types. People needed to head off those who politically disagreed with Scalia from getting too gleeful let alone some weirdo who stabbed a dozen people. I'm surprised at the angle you choose to come at this with, even with your particular concerns. I'd expect some comment about outrage culture leading to people trying to fire people for speech they don't agree with or something. Expected a different flavor of "blame PC culture" I guess.
  11. Footy: Yaya Ascendant

    Unless he's going off to see the sights or something while he's supposed to be manning your defense..I don't think so. He seems like a pretty chill guy.
  12. Another thread about hiphop...

    J. Cole dropped False Prophets, which seems to be taking shots at Kanye at least. I think he has another track aimed at other rappers. I like Cole but I think he's a bit too didactic,frankly.Too needy for validation in terms of making "meaningful" hiphop. His constant struggles with his madonna/whore issues and his desire to punish "hoes" are also not endearing so, while Kanye is a jackass and deserves the stuff he said, I'm not particularly sold on this song. The flow is good but the beat and vibe are not for me.
  13. Footy: Yaya Ascendant

    It's physically worse but I feel like you should have to pay a "weirdo premium" for biting people. Like, what the fuck? Untrue. He had Fabregas by the neck before the slap.
  14. MMA & Boxing 18: "I'm The World Champion!"

    I mean, the Americans already made Floyd rich so it's not like they're above that impulse. They love that rapper persona too. Hell, Conor is working off the blueprints they made.
  15. Footy: Yaya Ascendant

    Fernandinho didn't even shove him over. In video, amazing. Can you get a yellow card for diving while the ball is not in play?