Jump to content


Board Moderators
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mormont

  1. It's defined very clearly. That's not the problem. The problem is, it's defined as one physical location, and that is a, not the definition of a 'household', b, not the definition used by Netflix up to now, and c, not a workable definition for providing the service customers want even if nobody shared a password ever again. Customers of streaming services want that service to be attached to them, not to one physical location. They do this now and will continue to do it. It's additional to the physical location. If you want to use two devices in one household (in future, in one physical location), you pay extra.
  2. https://thestreamable.com/news/confirmed-netflix-unveils-first-details-of-new-anti-password-sharing-measures Netflix signing their own death warrant here. You made password sharing part of your brand: now you're killing it? Also, please stop saying 'household' when you mean 'physical location'. Those two words are not interchangeable for a substantial percentage of your subscriber base. It's bizarre that, for example, I can share my Netflix account with a stranger staying in my spare room as an AirB&B*, but not my daughter who I care for but lives at a different address. The first person, according to Netflix, is someone in my 'household' but the second is not. I can think of a dozen more examples easily, and so can you, probably - people you know. Netflix, you don't mean 'household' at all, so stop using that word. Even more - you have to watch Netflix at least once every month or your device will be blocked! I sometimes go a month without using my account (but I don't cancel, because I'm lazy). Free money that Netflix apparently have a problem with. And don't go on holiday for more than a week. Netflix doesn't approve. This is some nonsense cooked up by middle-class people who think everyone lives the same lifestyle they do. *notionally. I don't actually do AirB&B.
  3. 'Hone my dragon fist'? Well, I guess he can call it what he likes as long as he cleans up afterward.
  4. Wait, no, I can bring this back on topic! Putting aside the intricacies of the Meghan/Harry relationship, all this stuff about how he's 'emasculated', 'subservient', a lapdog, etc. fits very well with Tate's 'men do not fear you, your woman disagrees with you, your life is shit' stuff. It's the very same idea of masculinity that Tate promotes: masculinity is defined by being in charge, telling people what to do, people fearing you and so on. It's not being used to justify the repellent and criminal behaviour Tate is accused of, but it's the same conception of masculinity. Ironically, it even fits with Harry's own decision to talk about how he killed 25 people in Afghanistan and didn't feel sad. Same toxic masculinity energy there. It's not the killing, it's the decision to talk publicly about it in those terms. Tate, and for that matter Epstein, is where that attitude ultimately takes you: people who use 'masculinity' as an excuse to treat others, particularly women, as objects. Real masculinity is more concerned with respecting others than demanding respect.
  5. I think the Harry stuff is pretty on-topic at least as regards male role models. The suggestion that abusing women is bad but paying too much respect to them is equally bad? That's a pretty great example of how toxic masculinity warps your brain.
  6. This is true. Although women are getting more bachelors and masters degrees than men, if we look at outcomes beyond that level and into the workplace, men still disproportionately achieve promoted posts in most professions (including those dominated by women like nursing and teaching) and do better in other ways. Their educational disadvantage doesn't appear to be reflected in their careers.
  7. I'm very sceptical of this argument. Participation rates among young men in HE over the last few years haven't declined: in fact they've mostly increased, albeit not by as much as for women. (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/843542/Publication_HEIPR1718.pdf). Other data I've read suggests that trade and other apprenticeships are growing, not at the expense of HE, but at the expense of other post-16 education and other employment/non-participation in the labour market. Apprenticeships aren't aimed at likely HE participants. It's not impossible that some young men choose them over HE, but statistically it doesn't seem to be a trend. Same applies to attitudes to HE in schoolkids: the data shows that they continue to go into HE if they can, significantly more so than they did twenty years ago.
  8. It's not disputed that in almost every developed Western country, boys (and in particular, economically disadvantaged boys) get poorer educational outcomes than girls, almost from the start of their educational career. What's interesting is to consider why that is. Most disadvantaged groups (including girls) use education as a way to improve their lot in life. But that doesn't seem to happen with economically disadvantaged boys. One thing we can say with some certainty, though, is that idea of 'masculinity' promoted by the likes of Tate is a cause, not an effect, of this disadvantage. Not the only cause, but certainly a cause. Education is seen as 'weak' in that mindset: men should get what they want by right, or by force, not by earning it through study. Research shows this is a common contributor to the educational disadvantage of boys.
  9. Perhaps. But the men above (and again, just six random names I picked in 60 seconds) are notably successful. They're courageous, decisive and bold. They show leadership and self-belief and they care about others, including other men. Even physically, they're all attractive and in great shape, fine specimens of masculinity. Any definition of 'positive male role model' that excludes those six wouldn't be worth bothering with. Of course. Tricky to pick examples of those in a discussion with strangers, though!
  10. The idea that there's a shortage of positive models of masculinity in the Western world just doesn't bear out. Chris Evans, Barack Obama, Keanu Reeves, Daniel Craig, Marcus Rashford, Stormzy, it doesn't take a minute to think of half a dozen names. You could easily put together a list of 50 in an hour. It's not a serious argument.
  11. I'm going to summarise with a couple of remarks then leave this, rather than go deeper. The idea that GRRM is 'hostile' to his fans is nonsense. I've seen him interact with fans, going above and beyond what many authors would do: autographing for hours at a time (on a purely voluntary basis - not a tour, at conventions where he gets nothing in return), chatting with them happily, giving up time and advice and kind words, happy and contented. He loves his fans. That's a simple fact. What is being discussed here is a comment on his blog, which we appear to agree is not addressed to all fans, so right there, the original comment is proven to be ill-judged and inaccurate. You can blather on about being 'inclusive' but what you mean is, you said 'fans' when you should have said 'certain fans'. The continual use of 'fans', unqualified, to describe the section of the fanbase that is frustrated with GRRM implies that all fans share the same view. They don't. And in this context, where you are suggesting a negative view from GRRM towards 'fans', it is particularly foolish not to qualify the term. It can reasonably be read as an attack on GRRM. I don't even view it as hostile to those particular fans. It's anticipating criticism, correctly, from certain quarters that erupts whenever GRRM talks about anything other than writing TWOW. I read it as weary, rather than angry, and I don't blame him for being weary of that reaction. But his desire to interact with fans is shown from the fact that he's posting at all, when he has no obligation to do so. What he's upset about is that he can't do that without someone kicking him. Like you have done here.
  12. [mod] Can we stay on-topic here please? The topic was not US politics, we have a thread for that. [/mod]
  13. If you're saying that you meant to indicate that GRRM is upset at only some fans, not fans in general: that's not how your post reads at all, I'm afraid. Nor your follow-up post. Both seem to be either suggesting that you believe that all fans are upset with GRRM for doing anything other than write, or that GRRM believes this. That's buttressed by some rather uncharitable comments about GRRM's past statements and behaviour, including in this post to which I'm responding. If you see yourself as being sympathetic but are coming over unsympathetic, well, maybe consider why. If I were giving any type of warning, it would not be ambiguous.
  14. Here, you're still generalising about 'fans' so that your original statement about GRRM's attitude to them can stand. It doesn't stand. Nor do some of the assertions you're making about past statements by GRRM. Just say 'I was out of line, sorry' and leave it there, would be my advice.
  15. This, I can't allow to pass. At no point has GRRM ever been 'hostile' to ASOIAF fans. He has been unfailingly generous, supportive and understanding, for decades. It's crystal clear, on top of that, that he feels an acute responsibility to fans and that this weighs on him daily. On occasion, GRRM has expressed frustration towards individuals who are rude or hostile towards him, and that's understandable. He's regularly accused online of being lazy, greedy, and uncaring by people who don't understand or care about the very real problems creative people sometimes face, who want to believe that the reason for the slow writing pace is his own personal failings, as judged by people who've never met him. I think we'd all find that tremendously difficult and would sometimes express a little frustration about it. But if there's hostility in this equation, it's being directed at GRRM by a small number of entitled people online. It's not directed from GRRM to fans. GRRM has always appreciated how lucky he is to have such a worldwide, dedicated fan base and still does.
  16. The portrayal of the elves is very much not the issue, for me. But... the writing is poor, both plot and script, some of the production is iffy, and the actors are doing what they can but it's very much not their best work and it shows.
  17. I've watched all four episodes and... I wanted to like it. It has some good moments. But overall, it's bad. I would genuinely not recommend.
  18. The problem with Snyder on Watchmen was not that he was a fan of the source material, but that he did not understand it.
  19. I can't imagine it's common to have shows where the writers hate the source material. I mean, surely this is selected against: writers who hate the material are less likely to apply, less likely to be selected, less likely to remain in the job. Most people don't hate their jobs. I can easily imagine that the writers have a very different view of the material than fans do, but there's a history of fans mistaking that for them 'hating' the source material. Seems a stretch. This is an imaginable scenario but is it really a presumable one?
  20. Maybe start a Warhammer thread for this conversation?
  21. I've rewatched it a number of times, tbh. Still think it's unjustly maligned. And much, much better than Temple of Doom. This looks... hmm. It's hard to get past the notion of Indy, who looks like he should be incapable of anything more energetic than a game of backgammon, jumping around and punching people. But maybe. Looks like there's a very high nostalgia factor though. At least Crystal Skull was trying to do something new with the franchise. (I know, that's why a lot of folks hated it.)
  22. Not sure the Marshal Law omnibus is still in print. The rights are a bit complicated, it was published in several different venues. I like ML but I'll always prefer the pure, unbridled weirdness of his Nemesis work. It had a unique tone, sort of a cross between Giger and Edward Gorey. Way out there, but also never taking itself too seriously. https://beyondthebunker.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/pat-mills-nemesis.jpg ETA - 2000AD tribute here: https://2000ad.com/news/kevin-oneill-1953-2022/
  23. Sad news: Kevin O'Neill has passed. The US audience may be less familiar with his work, unless they've read League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. This is because, famously, the Comics Code Authority rejected O'Neill's artwork as just inherently unsuitable for children. His proudest boast. We've lost a lot of iconic British artists recently but this is a big one.
  24. It's a shame Cavill is leaving, but not a surprise. Getting him for this role in the first place was notable, getting him to stay for three seasons more so. Hemsworth isn't as big a name (well, it's a bigger name... I should say, he's a lower profile actor, though he has co-starred with Schwarzenegger and Stallone) but at the same time it could be a lot worse. |it would be nice if folks could praise Cavill without writing off Liam Hemsworth sight unseen. Also, I wouldn't say the TV series is 'schlock' but then again, the books aren't anything other than well written fun fantasy either. They're not great literature or anything. (I'm reminded of a former boarder who used to look down on most such books but praised the Witcher to the heavens.) Getting to four seasons isn't bad at all. Getting three seasons out of a bona fide movie star is great.
  25. In the interests of good taste, and the fact that folks that know GRRM personally peruse the forum, let's put the actuarial tables away, please.
  • Create New...