Jump to content

Heartofice

Members
  • Content Count

    5,194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Heartofice

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,265 profile views
  1. I think that there is a section of the media, or twitter, who are waiting for Rogan to say something stupid so they can pounce on it and try to play up the whole narrative around him. I get it makes good clicks if you write stuff about the most popular podcaster on the planet. I agree with your point though, there does come a point where your product becomes so popular that maybe you can't keep doing what you were doing. Maybe there is a level of responsibility there. The whole vaccination thing is a case in point. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on that but the rest of the media is tightly controlled and mediated as to what you can and can't say on the topic because you don't really want to affect vaccine take up numbers. So should Rogan really be making his opinions known on the subject? But then if its a valid opinion you have to say why should he self censor? Either way most Rogan episodes are pretty dull and I would rarely bother to listen to 90% of them. But I would push back on anyone saying he just lets his guests talk and doesn't challenge them at all. There have been a number of occasions where guests who you would assume would get a free ride have actually been grilled and made to look pretty stupid. Sam Seder got a lot of value out of pointing out that Rogan ripped Candance Owens a new one when she decided to talk about Climate Change, and the internet is brim full of clips of Rogan "destroying" Dave Rubin. The incentives for the internet are all messed up and that is the issue. To get any traction you have to scream and use hyperbole. The OP of this very thread admitted to doing that. So writing something balanced or thoughtful is going to get you nowhere, so why not write something like 'OMG Peterson is a Nazi and Rogan is a child murderer', more people will pay attention to that, and you'll get more shares and retweets, from people who agree and people who disagree. I don't know how you fix that incentive structure but that is the root core of the issue.
  2. They’ve agreed to pay substantial fines if they try and do the same thing again in the future. Does that mean they’ve just given up? Or is there some loophole there that we don’t know about. I find it hard to believe this is the end of it. It gives so much power and leverage to Uefa
  3. There are reports that the London Mayor race is actually very close and that Bailey is running Khan to the wire. That is really baffling if true. I know Khan wasn’t an especially strong choice but really this was a very easy election for him to win
  4. Well you are just being dishonest if you think all superman stories are equally politically motivated. Why bother to engage if that is your position. It’s a nonsense. Outside of continuously telling me what I think. Well we can stop right there
  5. Right so somebody was convicted for tweeting a joke about blowing up an airport, Rosanne’s career is over, you didn’t really find that most of those people on that site hadn’t been cancelled and you did admit that you celebrated Andy Ngo getting his head smashed in... so what’s your point?
  6. Meh this argument that ‘everything is political’ like there is some sort of equivalence just doesn’t really stand up. Even suggesting that the mere act of telling a superman story is political and therefore there are no degrees to which poltics is the point of the story is just a very odd thing to say. Not every superman story is about him being an immigrant, most arent. Captain America is a deeply political character but there is a big difference between a story where he takes on a massive alien slug and one where he fights the US government or punches Hitler in the face. Again there could be an argument that changing the race of an established character is not a deeply political act, and that it was done in a colourblind way, except that argument goes out the window as soon as the person you hire someone famous for talking about racial poltics to write the movie.
  7. For one completely failing to acknowledge Coates is known specifically for writing on racial issues and the black experience .. like it’s nothing
  8. I wouldn’t worry about it, if the word means something to you then I think it is fine. It certainly has twisted in its meaning, but then words do change over time
  9. Maybe if they changed a black character to a white one, then specifically hired someone with a background writing about racial politics from a white perspective, and made a point of hiring a white director.. do you think maybe , just maybe there might be something in it? You are being so dishonest in your argument here it’s really time to not engage with you on this I think
  10. Very few people argue for a blank slate and very few people argue that behaviour is entirely based on 'ingrained natural differences'. The disagreement often comes down to how far on one side or the other you sit.
  11. All good points, but I think the overall issue for Labour, and for once I’m in agreement with Owen Jones here, is that Labour don’t have a vision or an identity. The Tories have been able to take over the culture and values vote easily, but also have moved away from the ‘austerity’ Tories image by pushing more spending. So where does Labour even fit now? It’s main line of attack has been Tory sleaze, but it isn’t cutting through, it’s again one of those things that mainly concerns people who hate the Tories anyway. When it comes to stuff people actually care about Labour don’t seem to have a good answer.
  12. You’d acknowledge his history of writing means he’s really not just any old comic book writer ( he’s written 2)? I’m not sure why you are so keen to dismiss his entire back catalogue? Of course casting a black superman doesn’t have to be political, for instance race could barely be mentioned in the movie. But then specifically hire a writer who is well known for writing on racial issues and white supremacy. Then there are suggestions that a black director will only be considered. So I’d say suspecting that the movie will be heavily leaning on political messaging doesn’t require Sherlock Holmes to figure it out
  13. I don’t agree with that, I’d say it’s definitely aimed at the teenage market. I get that some people who are older might enjoy it, but I feel like I’ve seen it all before somewhere else
  14. Well I don’t know if it’s all some clever conspiracy by the 1% or it’s just that a bunch of factors have all come together, and turning conversations towards race and gender is just more emotive and simpler, so gets traction
  15. I do find it interesting that the focus in very recent years has suddenly become on race and gender equality, and moved away from wealth equality? I'm rarely seeing those discussions any more, though I'm sure they happen. But after the occupy movement it's kind of odd that the wind has gone out of those sails completely and the battleground has moved into a more cultural one. Is the wealth inequality debate too hard to deal with? Is it unwinnable?
×
×
  • Create New...