karaddin

But I'm not a white dude and I'm quite happy to have Brie Larson making movies for me. You can have Chris Pratt movies. I think the most charitable interpretation I can muster is that whatever this was originally trying to say got lost in the rewrites and reshoots that were necessitated by Russia invading Ukraine. It had 4 months of reshoots, a very awkward line in this last episode about Russian tanks on borders, functionally zero involvement of the Russian government despite the story being all about tension between the US and Russia with someone trying to start a war, and the Skrulls base was a place that was either a USSR closed city (also Stalsk 12 from Tenet) or was originally meant to be Chernobyl and it looked a lot more the latter to me. I don't know what it was originally trying to say, although I suspect something about the necessity of refugees needing to find a home was probably in there somewhere, but I think whatever was meant to be there was lost in that process. If this is true it's quite remarkable they had 2 of only 9 seasons of shows get their original idea derailed by world events lol (FatWS seemed to lose a chunk of it's plot that was related to bioweapons due to covid)

It's the sort of penny pinching that costs them money down the line, but yeah.

In search of something nice to say -

That's a nice brand you got there, would be a real shame if someone used it to spam poo emojis and call people pedos

I swear it was the weekend but objective forms of measuring time are informing me I'm wrong. Can't find the tweet that lead me to think it had been addressed, but in trying to verify I did find a news article from last July saying they were moved online last year to avoid Texas travel so the person I saw was probably mistakenly (and understandably given the reason) thought it was about this year. Damn. I really hope they do change it. My wife said it looks like sundowning which would make it dementia, although mini strokes can go hand in hand with that. The things that jumped out to me were the the aides didn't seem surprised or worried, suggesting they're familiar with this happening, and he quietly went along with them when they ushered him off which is not something a high profile senator goes along with during a press conference if they're in their normal mind. If it was something small he would have tried to recover his train of thought and keep going.

I should give the disclaimer that my comment is based off prior iterations of this kind of shit and comments in this thread. I cannot deal with actually going and reading the law right now, so in the (imo extremely unlikely) event that this legislation actually provides precise definitions for every term used in it such that it's not vulnerable to unreasonable interpretation by those enforcing it then this objection would not apply.

Cross-dressing does not by its nature contain any of that. Drag performances don't need to have them either. You're only correct if these terms are interpreted reasonably, but if someone believes that all cross gender behavior is fundamentally about sexual excitement then you cannot be engaging in anything involving that activity without it also being about sexual excitement. Stop applying a reasonable person standard to things that won't be enforced by a reasonable standard.

Which tends to be one of the key traits of persecution like this. Leave enough room for interpretation by law enforcement to drive a 747 through and then they can enforce it whenever they like against only the people they dislike.

A government that doesn't make things better but doesn't make things worse is still better than a government thats enthusiastically making things worse after all.

If the UK is doing prison barges again then maybe it's time to buy Australian stocks before another first fleet departs.

I thought I saw agreement shortly after that article came out that they'd move it to another state, I hope that was accurate

I just keep having my jaw fall open again every time I get it closed lol

There's not many other instances of devaluing your own brand on a scale like this, but this goes so far beyond even new coke lol. It feels like if they'd tried to call new coke "New" with blue or yellow as the dominant color. Except even that doesn't manage to cover the fact that the "X" logo isn't even a logo, it's just literally the capital X from a specific font pack that I believe isn't even licensed in a way to allow it to be used like that. Oh, and the rebranding is rushed through in a 36 hour window encompassing 2 nights because it's clearly an insomnia decision with no real prior planning.

I can't agree with Spooky on that one lol, I really liked half of the episode. And there's plenty that's still far worse than the bad half.

On top of what Zorral mentioned there's some other really shitty behavior going on with writers that's also really harmful to the industry. The old model was for the writers to be part of the whole production, they'd write the initial script but they'd still be around for all the filming etc as well so they're on hand to update dialogue that isn't working etc, which gave them a chance to pick up other important skills on set. It meant that if they eventually get a chance to be show runner, they are already up to speed on a bunch of production related skill sets. The more recent trend has been to isolate writers from the rest of the production, this both hurts their prospects for career progression, lowers the quality of writing (since they're not there to do edits), lowers their income, and when they do get a chance to be a show runner etc they're coming in with a much smaller skill set than they have historically which can lower the quality of the show or cause it to outright fail. Part of what they're demanding in the writers strike is restoring these aspects of career progression.

To stop a kid posting publicly available information about the movements of his private jet. That's now being posted on Zucks platform instead.

Yes it has, the section recommending prosecution for key figures is still sealed for the purposes of protecting the integrity of any future trials (ie not giving them grounds to claim the jury is tainted) but the charges may go up the ladder to Morrison himself. It was blatantly wrong to anyone with even the most minimal understanding of how eligibility for welfare payments are assessed in this country, you cannot use an average of total income for a year to that in retrospect when it's assessed based on actual fortnightly earnings. Especially going back further than people even retain any records. They pushed it ahead with it, deliberately dropping the debt claim on people that actually challenged it in the court to try avoid having an actual ruling against it and it took lives.

I think its naive to restrict your views on a person to only incorporate their explicit statements without taking any account of their past behaviour, other statements or awareness of inferences from the body of opinions as a whole. This doesn't simply work in a negative fashion, there are other people on this board for whom I would have assumed a level of bad faith from your initial question in this thread (this would actually be true for a brand new account as well) that I didn't from you because I know more about you than there was in that post. I'm sure you're actually still doing this as well, so the above is perhaps an exaggeration of your new philosophy and apologies for that, please bear with me here. So if we assume we're discussing where on that spectrum you should fall there's room for nuance. I actually agree with you that its not clear Julie Bindel specifically would prevent trans people from transitioning. I think it is clear she hates us, but perhaps she views it in such a negative light that she views transition as self inflicted abuse and she's all for us doing that to ourselves. I haven't read much of what she's said in a very long time because she's hateful person generally and there's nothing of value for me to gain from what she says, so its also possible there are statements from her that would lead me to think she does want to entirely ban transition. I'm going to contrast that against Janice Raymond who I mentioned above, I think there is enough on the record there for me to conclude she would completely ban transition if she had her way - or at least would have at the time she was doing the writing that I know her for. There is also a difference between making an assertion that a specific person likely believes something compared to that a significant percentage of a group likely believes a thing, and of course there's varying degrees for this too. Saying a specific TERF wants to completely ban transition? Probably needs statements that indicate that compared to the various other ways of excluding trans women. Saying a lot of TERFs want to ban transition? It's a logical inference from the generally held position of the group, I think its true and obviously (if I think its true) I think you can argue that but you are relying on inference and a bunch of other context etc. Saying TERFs as a group want to make transition harder for trans people, and that trans people generally find this pretty antagonistic behaviour? I don't think this is arguable, the explicit positions they have taken lead directly to this outcome. Saying TERFs do the above primarily because they hate trans women? Back into questionable territory. I'd say its definitely true for Bindel and Parker, I don't think its true for JKR and I think the majority of the "members" of the movement (as distinct from the "leaders") are likely much closer to JKR on this than those other 2. Saying that TERFs prioritize the safety of the majority (cis women) over the safety of the minority (trans women and men)? I don't think this one is arguable either, they feel the risk of men falsely claiming to be trans women to access women's bathrooms poses too much of a risk to cis women to allow trans women to use those bathrooms, expecting trans women to go elsewhere and sort their own safety. They could make a utilitarian ethical argument for this that I would emphatically reject, but it is a grounding that can be used to justify the lack of concern for others - people do that all the time. To bring it back to to your stated philosophy - I don't believe most TERFs would accept my phrasing of their stance here on the two items I claim as inarguable, but that is due to it being the uncomfortable truth about their goal that they don't wish to focus on. This is an example of why I don't find that philosophy workable. Sometimes you have to make someone look at the truths they don't like. But this probably isn't something we're going to be able to find common ground on when you're talking fundamentally different philosophy on life/social dynamics.

Please see my edit on that post, I was missing the starting point of your question. I'm not aware of Bindel having ever said explicitly that she would ban it outright but wouldn't expect her to actually come out and say it, just do everything to make it as hard as possible.

Following up on my post - yes, Janice Raymond heavily contributed to a US Government decision in the early 80s to not cover trans healthcare. https://www.transadvocate.com/fact-checking-janice-raymond-the-nchct-report_n_14554.htm Aside from this it's pretty disingenuous of you to require an explicit statement of "not allowing transition at all" to consider that as trans exclusionary. You know very well that these movements work by setting goal posts that are close, and then shifting them as soon as they are crossed. Someone who doesn't want trans people to be allowed to transition at all will start with things like "minors shouldn't be allowed puberty blockers", "trans care shouldn't be paid for as it's not medically necessary", and dramatically increasing the gate keeping on access to care rather than jumping straight to banning transition completely. ETA: I didn't reread all of the Varys post your initial question was replying to, just your question itself. With that context I understand more why you're asking that but I still think it's pretty ridiculous to expect them to openly say that when that's not the MO for this type of movement and Varys was making an assertion of their implied true goal, not a claim that it's openly stated.

Janice Raymond, Cathy Brennan, Sheila Jeffreys, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel to name some of the prominent ones that have been at it for decades and are rooted in feminist discourse. More recent prominence includes some that have adopted the style of TERFs but aren't necessarily actually feminists like Kathleen Stock (actually a philosophy academic), Posie Parker/Kelly-Jay Keen-Minshull (actually a misogynist right wing Nazi but gets treated like she's a feminist anyway). This enough to get started or do I need to provide detailed literature studies on each of them? To go with the first on the list one of the books she's known for is "The Transexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male". There was a TERF that was involved in lobbying Congress over how to handle trans care back in the 80s that managed to delay improved trans care for at least a couple of decades, I'm 90% this was Janice Raymond but trying to confirm that at the moment. I haven't read past the first section of this as it's very long, I found it while attempting to search for the above answer but it's covering the history of "TERF Wars" after gender critical people objected to the use of "TERF" in a gender subject when it wasn't even used by the convenor but simply students on their own. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038026120934713#bibr49-0038026120934713

I was really hoping for Pinot to hold on but alas. The Aus commentary played a clip from Ineos race radio of Kwiakowski relaying that UAE told him they were intending to win the stage but he wasn't sure what the actual plan was, I doubt this was actually the plan but when Yates managed to get back across to lead him out it sure all came together.

I'll acknowledge your late effort by asking you instead of Week :p I've seen push back on the profits from Modelo going back to AB InBev anyway on the basis of it not being distributed by their subsidiaries in the US, just the rest of the world - is that actually the case or just bullshit on Reddit?

Thought the scenes with Empire and Dominion were fantastic, managing to combine tension and chemistry. Ella-Rae Smith certainly has presence, I don't think I'd seen her in anything more than a minor role in the Witcher before but hope to see more from her now. The other storylines?

I don't know why someone who hasn't liked the independent showings of each of these characters, and intensely dislikes one of the actresses (both their performance of the character and her out of character comments), would be surprised that a movie combining the 3 doesn't appeal to them. Different people like different things, it's ok if something isn't made for you. Yeah this board isn't representative enough of the general audience to assume commercial success. But when almost every reply on the subject other than yourself is ranging from willing to give it a chance to very enthusiastic, then obviously someone thinks it looks interesting.