All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. No worries, I was just poking a little fun... I've been in my share of online disagreements too
  3. Ha!.... I think we may have been.... I really liked it... it wasn't Breaking Bad... but it was more than competent... I hope ii comes back for a 2nd season.... really good cliffhanger, too... they wrapped up almost everything, and then... blood on the bible...
  4. I haven't seen the show. I have no opinions on it I'm just really curious what, in this case would be "resemblance to the time it's supposed to be set" in terms of dialogue, and how exactly you'd go about "creating the illusion of something feeling genuine", i.e. like you're actually watching Celts from the 1st century, of you could be arsed. I mean, I guess you could employing a historical linguist to do their best to translate all the dialogue in Ancient Celtic, and then force the actors to actually speak their lines like that, and put subtitles for the audience... ...That would certainly be groundbreaking. But somehow I suspect that's not what you had in mind. So... I'm guessing everyone would still be speaking Modern English, right? But you would want a more "authentic" dialogue? So, again... hire a scholar to guess as to how 1st century Celts spoke in their everyday life, based on the few hundreds of documents and fragments in their language that have been preserved, and then translate those exact turns of phrases into English? ...That would certainly be quite a lot of arsing. And would still be pretty questionable and full of guesswork, as I'm going to hazard a guess that you can't get a good idea of how people spoke in everyday life based just on some inscription you've found. Or, maybe, you know, we don't really have much of a freaking clue they spoke and what vocabulary or idioms they used, wouldn't understand a single thing even if we did, and any idea that someone could shoot a show with "authentic" dialogue or "genuine" feeling of what it was like to live among 1st century Celts is utterly preposterous? But maybe I'm wrong. I do want to know how one would go about making it "authentic" for something set in that time period and location. Can you name any examples?
  5. As somebody that has been an observer of American politics for a very long time, it’s hard sometimes not to cringe at the word “freedom” as it’s so often misused by conservatives to promote their preferred policies or is simply a term of propaganda. And I think there are two reasons for this. One is that their talk of “freedom” is often very hypocritical. They will talk about on and on about “freedom” but then have nothing to say about people like Arpaio blatantly violating the fourth amendment rights of the Latino population in Arizona. And then of course, I think most of us are aware of the civil liberties disaster that was the George W. Bush administration. But other than the mealy mouthed double talk about “freedom” that comes from some quarters here in the US, I think there is a more deeper philosophical issue, if you will, which is that often libertarians, particularly, hard core property rights libertarians, which tend to bleat about it the most and dominate the conversation about “freedom”, here in the US at least, with their preferred version of it, which is basically grounding their ideas in property rights and negative rights. Back a few years ago, Ron Paul quipped that he wouldn’t have supported the 1964 Civil Rights act. Now I think that is a horrible position to take, but it is highly consistent with Paul’s and the libertarian position on “freedom”. And I think for that reason, the libertarian conception of freedom is very flawed, mainly because it is unable to deal with the world we live in, rather than the one libertarians think we live in. Or expressed another way, the libertarian method about freedom simply disregards the threat of private power in limiting freedom. And then of course, the libertarian notion of freedom, sees there is a simple trade off between freedom and equality, ie you can have one or the other but not both, and I don’t think it’s as simple or as linear as libertarians sorts would make it. For instance, the ability to support oneself is pretty important to enjoy freedom, and if your not able to because you’re facing private discrimination, ie being treated unequally for some really arbitrary reason, your freedom is rather limited. And then of course if your at the bottom of the economic pecking order, you’re going to likely have less “freedom” than others, as your probably going to have to jump through more hoops just to survive, than others who are not at the bottom of the economic pecking order. In fact, your "freedom" in such case may likely be mirage, which I think is the main point of your post. Now having stated all this, I think it would be a mistake for liberal or left leaning people to think freedom isn’t a good thing in many cases. Certainly, freedom allows people to make their own private decisions with regard to their family arrangements, allows them to express their conscience, permits people to live in manner that may not be considered “normal” in a socially conservative society, and so on and so forth. The point, I’m making here, is that I think liberals or left leaning shouldn’t cede the ground about freedom to conservatives and libertarians so easily, and should dispute their version of it as being flawed. Now I’m not aware of liberals having a version of freedom, fleshed out from first principles, like say property rights libertarianism (maybe somebody did, but hey I’m more likely to read the TV guide than philosophy as it makes my head hurt), and libertarians might say that a notion of freedom not derived from first principles like the libertarian conception of it is unmoored and unprincipled, to which like Keynes I’d say; The libertarian conception about freedom is a fine example of how starting with a mistake, a remorseless logistician can end up in bedlam. And a remorseless logistician starting with a mistake is exactly how somebody like Ron Paul ends up in bedlam over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But, anyway, I don’t think liberals or left leaning people should just give up on the notion of freedom, but rather should dispute the right wing version of it. In another thread I quoted Schlesinger about Cuba who in the 1950s made the remark: "The corruption of the government, the brutality of the police, the regime’s indifference to the needs of the people for education, medical care, housing, for social justice and economic justice...is an open invitation to revolution." And Schlesinger also said: "I was enchanted by Havana – and appalled by the way that lovely city was being debased into a giant casino and brothel for American businessmaen over a weekend from Miami. My fellow countrymen reeled through the streets, picking up fourteen-year-old Cuban girls and tossing coins to make men scramble in the gutter. On wondered how any Cuban – on the basis of this evidence – could regard the United States with anything but hatred." Based on Schlesinger comments it doesn't seem to me that many Cubans were enjoying freedom all that much, at least not 14 year old Cuban girls and destitute men. Now, I don’t like authoritarian regimes, either left wing or right wing, as I guess you could call me an Orwell social democrat. But, one of the frustrating things about conservative sorts of people here in the US is that when they talk about Cuba, there is simply no acknowledgement of why revolution happened in Cuba and the US’s part in it. When people’s basic needs are not being met, when the wealthy plunder a country, and when a people have a feeling they have no control over their own country, being at the mercy of international businessmen, and in the case of Cuba, gangsters, it really ought not to be surprising that the people would get fed up and throw a revolution. And it seems to me that it’s a lesson that conservative sorts of people just never want to learn. Also at this juncture in our history, it is simply silly for the US to hold a grudge against Cuba, we should attempt to normalize relations with them, and let the Cuban people figure out for themselves what kind of political and economic system they want to have. Given enough time, I’m sure they will do alright.
  6. Click on the correct answer. I failed to notice that and was writing answers down in Notepad, duh. http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/breaking-bad-superfan-quiz.html
  7. Yes the slaves were the uncompensated labor force. The region will struggle for a while but will survive and grow stronger for it. An economy where people are paid for their work will encourage innovation and initiative. Those cities were falling apart. The bricks were deteriorating because the master class were living in the past and were basically a drag on the economy.
  8. Yeah, and the amount and quality of healthcare, education and housing you can provide for your citizens is of course intimately tied to how productive the overall economy is. Also, if only those basic needs matter then I don't see what your problem with capitalist countries is. The amount of people that can't meet those needs is pretty small, and most have enough for way more than that.
  9. That his mother is the daughter of a fisherman? Sure. Son, I was on a boat during the rebellion and a homely but kindly woman gave me assistance. We slept together and made you. My favorite scenario -> Jon, you are the son of my sister Lyanna and my brother Brandon.
  10. Yes, yes, yes, this is what it is about. Trump can fuck a million porn stars with consensual sex who cares. It his attitudes and the attitudes of his base and the R MoC's that give him the pass for his extra-marital affairs. I don't really care what Melania thinks, his base certainly doesn't, the R's in the Congress and Senate don't, but gee, let a Democrat do that and all hell breaks loose. John Edwards, Gary Hart, that's all that people remember about them; their affairs during their Prez runs. Trump should be treated the same, but he doesn't get the pearl clutching, OMG HE CHEATED ON HIS WIFE!! bs, that's the issue. edt; just for the record, I don't gaf about Melania, at all. I don't gaf about the parameters of their marriage. I do gaf some people actually respect monogamy and it has meaning to them. If Trump's don't so what, but why does he get to have the double standard when others don't? It's wrong.
  11. George has not only a message to his fans but he also wants to challenge our beliefs and face some very uncomfortable truths. The main message is to think through and see beyond the bullcrap. The complexity of aSoIaF is not in the plot but rather in the many messages in between those pages and in between the lines. Cooperation is just one of many such message. I don't believe you can say they won't cooperate. That's oversimplication for George. It's more accurate to say some will cooperate and most will not. And on the matter of people who sinned getting their just desserts; I can't say that's an accurate reflection of reality. The truth is (remember 'uncomfortable truths) many who sinned get away with it. I would not come to the conclusion, for example, Littlefinger getting punished for his crimes. Criminals have gotten away without retribution. Do not automatically assume the people who hurt your favorite characters will get punished. The only one who can punish with accuracy and to the appropriate degree is a god and many will argue this is not so. So if a god or gods are not going to intervene in the story then this idea of wrongdoers getting punished is false hope.
  12. Of course he should have told him before. Way way way before. Leaving him as he did was cruel. Ned robbed Jon of his identity and forced a very crappy one upon him instead. I don't think Ned ever would have told him the truth because he'd be scared of Roberts reaction, which in turn is dumb as hell. Yeah Robert hated Targs but he loved Lyanna more. He'd never kill the one thing she left behind. (all this is assuming R+L=J) edit: Also Robert having a legitimised Jon on hand would have further undermined Viserys' claim since he couldn't be King before Jon in any case.
  13. Sure, over the last two years that has been an ongoing outrage over Trump's treatment of women. But this current conversation has focused on the Stormy Daniels issue. All of the posters I've responded to have been pretty clear about their issue with him cheating on his wife. No, my desire to stop monogamy bias bullshit isn't affecting my view. I can still read. Can you? How about you go back and look at Tywin et als post, aceluby, fragile bird, nasty long rider and a few others I might have forgotten. They were focused on the cheating with a bit of extra on the NDA. And no, it's not silly to say that we don't know about their marriage. What's silly is a bunch of people trying to victimize Melania as though she were too stupid to know the type of person she wed.
  14. 1. Myrcella 2. Oldtown will be saltpaned 3. I think he will survive. 4. Yes 5. Big Walder maybe 6. Her own. 7. I hope that ados prologue be his pov 8. Give loan to Stannis. 9. I don't know. 10. Try to survive ironborns 11. Maybe something important ti faceless man. 12. Maybe. I am not sure. 13. Maybe. Harry most likely 14. I don't care. 15. Someone targaryen blood. 16. I don't know
  15. I did not notice the shock and outrage you've been fixated on here. I think the liberal outrage here is about Trump's grotesque attitudes about women and the fact that he gets away with what would have sunk any other politician. I think your desire to increase social acceptance of non-monogamous relationships is affecting your view of other people's arguments. And I think it's a little silly for you to take the "we don't know the parameters of their marriage" stance with Donald Trump of all people.
  16. Yeah, I apologize. I really shouldn't be engaging with that person who obviously just wants to argue. I figured I said something completely uncontroversial - that Chapelle is transphobic- but it set off a bunch of people who like defending those sorts of people. So, I think I'm watching Colony. I sort of remember watching it before. I haven't been paying much attention, but I do know that I keep glancing at the screen expecting to finally see some aliens, but there's nothing. How can they have an alien show with no aliens? Do that not have a big enough budget?
  17. I know what GDP per capita means. I don't consider it an important measurement. I don't consider it a relevant one at all. I'm concerned about things like whether or not a country can care for the basic needs of it's citizens. Are they healthy, literate, have housing, etc. Don't particularly care if the country is producing a certain amount of money. Worries about that come from a deeply capitalist bias.
  18. We went to see The Post today.... F'ing loved it... The thing that struck me, was that besides the obvious A-list casting of Meryl Steep and Tom Hanks (seriously, is it possible to do better than those two?)... the supporting cast was excellent... Carrie Coon (Leftovers, Fargo)... Sarah Paulson (AHS).... Bob Odenkirk (Better Call Saul)... Mathew Rhys (The Americans).... Alison Brie (Mad Men) .... Michael Stuhlbarg (Boardwalk Empire).... just to name a few... .... and now back to your regularly scheduled Message Board Argument
  19. Yes, and how does them marching together stop NK from becoming a nuclear power? That's their main goal and it's the Trump admin's stated main goal to stop it. Everything that happens in between now and when they achieve their goal is them buying what little time they need to finish. They may want some time after they finish building a nuke that can reach the mainland US to do other things to prepare, but that's pretty much the goal. We're basically down to two likely scenarios. One, NK will become a nuclear power. Many will hate this, but it's likely the best scenario available, and it is a pretty terrible result. Two, the U.S. and/or South Korea attacks NK. The obvious results of scenario 2, which are likely horrific, are why scenario one is the best result available. Couple other scenarios, but they really don't seem likely. China intervenes. The various sanctions on NK actually work in halting NK's progress toward it's goal. (I think this is highly unlikely at this point)
  20. Well duh. The McJesusites will always be concerned about everyone else's private lives and completely ignore their own faults in the matter. They have their sky fairy, after all, to whom they can just ask forgiveness and all is well. But we're talking about the liberal reaction here. These are liberals on this forum that are expressing shock and outrage about what appears to be a consensual affair. Liberals who are worrying themselves over poor Melania without any idea of the boundaries within tha tparticular marriage. Liberals who are being rabidly against non-monogamy.
  21. It's -Robert's- rebellion. He led by example in his rampant couplings.
  22. GDP per capita means the amount of income that is produced per person in the country. A pretty important metric if you consider money to have a noteworthy effect on peoples' lives. Of course it shouldn't be the only standard by which to evaluate a society, don't get me wrong, but Cuba is at any rate a pretty damn poor country nowadays, which is worth taking into consideration amidst all the discussions about how well the Castros have run things.
  23. Well Theon had identity issues well before Ramsay ever got his hands on him. I think his actions were an attempt to prove to himself he was something he wasn't. His journey of self discovery has been expensive and by no means does the end justify the means(be it Theon's actions -or- Ramsay's), but I think Theon's a person who did terrible things more than a terrible person.
  24. No, we'd aren't required to be educators for other people. I don't give a fuck about 'changing someone's minds' on some random online forum. If you want to be someone's educator, have at it. Don't try to force that job on everyone. As for Scot, he's still a deeply religious conservative sort of person. Maybe you need to keep educating him.
  25. I don't think it's American liberals you need to convince about keeping out of politicians' private lives. It's the hypocritical McJesusites who pretend to care about "traditional" marriage and monogamy and abstinence as long it's a cudgel against liberals, and then discovered moral relativism when it's time to support Trump, or Vitter, or Gingrich.
  1. Load more activity