mormont

I very carefully curate my timeline, so I don't see a lot of the neo-Nazis etc. But there's no denying that a lot of the folks I did follow, have left. And that's a noticeable change.

It doesn't have any free speech for those who have been driven off the platform by harassment.

You're proceeding from a false premise here, because Last Jedi definitely sets up the last part of the sequel trilogy. It gets Snoke out of the way and leaves the final conflict to be between Kylo Ren (and Hux) and Rey (and Poe and Finn and the rest). And this is correct, and better than what we got, because the nine films as a whole are not about Palpatine. It's not Palpatine's story. (Which is one reason why having Rey being descended from Palpatine is a bad idea.) They are the Skywalker saga. And they start with Anakin, but the way TLJ sets it up: Snoke gone (he was always a distraction at best), Kylo Ren having rejected redemption, Rey being shown to be nobody, not related to the Skywalkers or Palpatine - a final film could have brought the Skywalker saga to an actual end with the death of Kylo Ren, the last remaining Skywalker descendant*. The SW universe could have continued with characters that don't have to tie in to the Skywalker saga all the time, characters that can be powerful in the Force just because, where ordinary people can do extraordinary things instead of because they are The Chosen One. That's what TLJ sets up for episode 9. And that's what would have been a fitting conclusion in my eyes. Closing the Skywalker saga, and opening a vista of possibilities. *OK, apart from Leia, but Leia was always going to die in the last film too.

'Force ghost you are, yes. But grant you the rank of Jedi Master, we do not.'

Come on now. The 'conspiracy theory' HoI is referring to is not about whether Musk hates his daughter, hates her politics, or she hates him, or whatever. It's quite clear that by 'conspiracy theory' he means the idea that Musk bought Twitter because of his daughter, which Musk is explicitly saying he did. (It's not true, as others have pointed out. But he said it.) You're trying to split hairs here over a minor correction.

I mean, this has been the situation for the last forty years.

I don't think it's a 'conspiracy theory' if Musk actually said it.

Now, you may want a good source on this, because it's so insane, so I'm quoting and linking to the speech direct: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/minister-jenricks-statement-on-illegal-migration#:~:text=Those lawyers found to be,immigration offenders on weekly flights Life imprisonment. For giving dodgy immigration advice. You can commit literally any amount of burglaries (provided you don't go armed) and never get a life sentence. You can defraud a pension fund of any amount of money and never get a life sentence. You can launder money for a drug smuggler for decades and never get a life sentence. I could go on. Yes, I understand that it's unlikely that this would ever be a default or even common sentence for this proposed offence. But the idea that this government is willing to stand up in Parliament and declare something that is, at worst, professional malpractice to be a crime equivalent to the most serious offences on the books - murder, armed robbery, rape, kidnapping - is fucking nuts. A new low, even by the breathtaking standards of this absolute clown show of a government.

I'm sure his legal team have told him this, and equally sure that no such lawsuit will ever materialise. The point is not to actually sue. The point is to try to scare the ADL off, and signal to the bigots that Musk has their back.

To the poor management of those claims by the council, at any rate.

There's so much wrong with what she said that has nothing to do with the swearing. Like, no, it's not your fault, but it is your responsibility, and do you understand the difference and why it matters? And, do you understand that it is the interviewer's job to press you on what you're saying, and so it will naturally feel like they are blaming you, and it's part of your job as a politician to cope with that and not take it personally? And of course, no, in fact you're not doing 'a fucking good job' on this at all?

And also gay mafia, the trans mafia, the BBC, travellers, Muslims, Scotland, Wales, local government, nursery staff, writers, the House of Lords, and the WI.

In order to persuade the voters that they aren't to blame, it's necessary for the Tories to invent enemies that have been preventing them from making the country a paradise. Just happens to be the police's turn, after asylum seekers, lawyers, teachers, doctors, academics, 'liberal elites', woke, the civil service, the EU, benefit scroungers, millenials, trade unions, criminals, drill music, every opposition politician and protesters.

As marginal as the benefit of someone getting a booster may be, I can't imagine it's any less marginal than the benefit of arguing about it for two full pages.

[mod] I think that badgering someone for personal medical information might not be the sort of thing we want to see, thank you. Let's lay off that line of discussion. [/mod]

I have seen some horrors in new builds. Went into one a few months ago, and I was like 'this vestibule is quite big'. It was the lounge. Genuinely, once you got a TV and sofa in there, you would have run out of space for furniture, and this was supposed to be a three bedroom place.

Even the linked thread agrees that it is 'about that', if we understand 'that' to be loosening pollution laws to allow new housing? It's fine to say you agree with the idea, but let's not pretend it's not about the thing it's actually about. Anyway, today from the Department of Really Bad Ideas But We're Desperate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66660136 How is this going to work? Are relatives/victims really going to feel better once they watch someone be wrestled into the dock by half a dozen G4 staff? Does anyone expect the criminals then going to sit quietly and listen after being dragged there? it'll turn the sentencing hearing into a circus. Just stupid, cheap, vote-chasing (and yes, I'm aware Labour are supporting this dumb idea.)

If you don't throw the can in, how do you know it isn't Pepsi?

It's irrelevant anyway. If the police spent all their time investigating thefts, then that would just increase the backlog in the court system, which Braverman refuses to do anything about.

Saw this yesterday with my 23-year-old daughter. Great film. It should be getting serious numbers of awards, but it probably won't, because a, it's a comedy and they never do, and b, it's Barbie. But it's a Barbie film that's a weird existential comedy that grapples with the problematic aspects of Barbie as a concept, that starts with a 2001 pastiche and ends with Barbie choosing mortality, that deals with themes of identity and empowerment. And yes, patriarchy, because you can't make a Barbie movie and not talk about patriarchy, whether intentionally or not. It'd be like making a Batman movie and not talking about vigilantism. So you might as well take the subject on directly. But the film ends with Barbie encouraging Ken to become more than an accessory to her, and has Barbie's creator (acting as the closest thing to God) declaring that patriarchy is just another thing humans invent to avoid dealing with existential angst. And Barbie chooses to live in the real world, even though she's experienced first hand the impact of patriarchy in that world. So the film is about a lot more than patriarchy = bad. (Although patriarchy is bad, of course.)

Just having a little fun since we're discussing this way beyond what it deserves!

How unrealistic, nobody ever does that in real life.

None of them work, though. By which I mean none of them do what the writers need to do here, which is establish the characters of Skoll and his apprentice. As noted, the use of the Jedi codes establishes for the viewer the idea that Skoll has links to the Jedi. The captain's preparedness, and Skoll's ability to handle that reaction with ease, besting all of the New Republic troops easily, establishes his power levels. And the fact that he tried the deception when he could simply have killed them all to start with, establishes that he doesn't want to kill for the sake of killing. Writing needs to do more than satisfy your version of credibility. I've said it before, people on this board get too hung up on 'plot' and 'plot holes' as the be-all and end-all of good writing. It's a blinkered view.

This is just sad.

Ormond could comment with more knowledge, but my understanding is that depressing expectations does not in fact have a signficant protective effect on mental health.