US Politics: A small step from going viral to going postal

[Mindwalker]

16 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I really struggle to understand this.  So we have low information voters who:  

• get most of theirs news from conservative news sources like talk radio and Fox. 
• love the cut of Trump's gib (his political incorrectness, his anti-immigration stance, his "fearlessness" and willingness to attack anyone and anything, his status as a billionaire playboy). 
• are very conservative and genuinely believe that the Dems will take away their guns and religion. 
• love low taxes. 
• are horrified by the existence of abortion. 
• believe COVID is a hoax and Trump didn't do anything wrong. 
• Don't care whether the President engages in law-breaking or lacks character. 
• Are triggered by negative partisanship. 
• Are racist and hated the fact Obama became president. 

Which (or which combination) of these is true and to what extent?

All of it, probably. You forgot the threat of antifa and jews, I mean Dems eating children.

Interesingly, the Pod Save America guys mention data showing that the only thing that seems to sway some of his voters is to show his incompetence, not his villainy. (My word, not theirs.) IOW, it's ok if he's a raging hypocrite, a criminal, a racist, a rapist, but it' not ok if he isn't the strong man you thought he would be. I'm probably oversimplifying. But it's exactly what the Obamas' speeches at the DNC leaned into: "He just can't. It is what it is."

 

[Week]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Just capitalism, people desiring to  profit from such depictions because there’s an audience for it.

Are you still smearing a movie that you haven't seen due to Netflix's terrible ad campaign and right-wing frothing over it?

Toddlers and Tiaras, Beauty Pageants, etc etc are all actual shows and events going on that are what you describe which are not under attack. Shockingly, it's a movie by a black french-african director that people are attacking (and sending her death threats).

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54027182

Quote

The film is intended to be a commentary on the sexualisation of pre-adolescent girls - rather than an endorsement of it.

"The truth of the movie, as has been well covered by reviews and audience reactions, is that it is the nuanced, sensitive tale of a pre-teen girl who gets caught between two cultures," said Deadline's Tom Grater.

In her interview with the publication, Doucouré herself noted: "I received numerous attacks on my character from people who had not seen the film, who thought I was actually making a film that was apologetic about hyper-sexualisation of children."

Actress Tessa Thompson tweeted : "Disappointed to see how it was positioned in terms of marketing. I understand the response of everybody. But it doesn't speak to the film I saw."

Doucouré said she received "really supportive" messages from people who had seen the film, as well as "extraordinary support" from the French Government.

She added the film is set to be used as an educational tool in her home country.

In its apology, Netflix said the promotional image was "not representative" of the film itself and said it was "deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork".

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Week said:

Are you still smearing a movie that you haven't seen due to Netflix's terrible ad campaign and right-wing frothing over it?

Nope.

I watched the movie. 

4 minutes ago, Week said:

Toddlers and Tiaras, Beauty Pageants, etc etc are all actual shows and events going on that are what you describe which are not under attack. Shockingly, it's a movie by a black french-african director that people are attacking (and sending her death threats).

Dude I literally said the movie wasn’t a particularly egregious example of media sexualizing underage girls.

Its one of many, and there are far worse examples that haven’t gotten attention.

I’ve read the up on the director’s stated intent.

But I think any criticism she’s had in the movie is stilted with the young girls, actors being instructed to do things that the movie is supposed to be condemning.

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Mike Bloomberg commits to at least 100 million in spending in Florida (wapo limited clicks).

How bout that fuck honors his commitments to his former employees first?  And whatever happened to that billion dollar promise?  Seriously, fuck Mike Bloomberg.  If I was Biden I'd tell him to shove his money up his bullshitting ass.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

How bout that fuck honors his commitments to his former employees first?  And whatever happened to that billion dollar promise?  Seriously, fuck Mike Bloomberg.  If I was Biden I'd tell him to shove his money up his bullshitting ass.

Someone woke up on the spicy side of the bed....

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Someone woke up on the spicy side of the bed....

Well, you're right that I woke up still drunk, but I can only get up on one side of my bed.  The other side is a wall.

[Week]

20 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Nope.

I watched the movie. 

Dude I literally said the movie wasn’t a particularly egregious example of media sexualizing underage girls.

Its one of many, and there are far worse examples that haven’t gotten attention.

I’ve read the up on the director’s stated intent.

But I think any criticism she’s had in the movie is stilted with the young girls, actors being instructed to do things that the movie is supposed to be condemning.

 

Your post in no way reflects that and was in line with the thread in the Entertainment forum.

I appreciate your follow up in bold. Continuing in italics suggests you do believe there is a legitimate problem. Then to suggest the backlash is legitimate concerns for the young actresses seems to be deliberating miss the point and ignoring the death threats which are inarguably driven by bad faith right wing frothing response to the ads.

Note: you will reply that you're not. I am telling you what message I'm reading from what you've written. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

27 minutes ago, Week said:

Your post in no way reflects that and was in line with the thread in the Entertainment forum.

I didn’t think the director succeeded in her stated intent of the film so I couldn’t have watched it?

That because my experience watching the film didn’t have me applauding it I couldn’t have watched it?

27 minutes ago, Week said:

Note: you will reply that you're not. I am telling you what message I'm reading from what you've written. 

Eh. The backlash from the far-right is largely just a way to demonize anyone to the left of them as a pedophilic satanist.

It doesn’t mean the film is good, or accomplished a good thing because bad people hate it.

 

[Gaston de Foix]

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

How bout that fuck honors his commitments to his former employees first?  And whatever happened to that billion dollar promise?  Seriously, fuck Mike Bloomberg.  If I was Biden I'd tell him to shove his money up his bullshitting ass.

Take his money and fuck him on the other side of the election.  It's what he cares infinitely more about than his country.  His presidential campaign is revealed as 100% vanity and 0% call to serve.  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

For the sake of the world I hope he doesn't take your advice.  

Biden don't need no handouts!  Seriously, the campaign is fine on cash, let's not act like Bloomberg is being a savior here but rather more interested in the positive press.

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

In fact he also cheated her on her divorce settlement. $14 million was a puny amount even then.   Ivana, after all, gave Trump his three eldest kids and also played a widely under-recognized contribution to his business.  

Under recognized contribution??? Did she help him go bankrupt 4 times or did she avert a 5th bankruptcy?

[SpaceChampion]

Too little, too late.  The highlight of Bernie's campaign was his outsized effectiveness in getting the Latino vote.  It didn't work everywhere -- not in Florida with the Cuban vote.  But apparently Biden is doing worse with those than Bernie??  how the fuck do you screw up this badly?

Bernie's Latino outreach people were begging to help the Biden campaign, but once again we have an establishment and their billion dollar consultants sneering at anything done by progressives and refusing their help with easily gettable demographics.

The one thing to do to get the Latino vote is to include them in the campaign and ask them what would help their community.  Bernie's team didn't do anything magic.  Talk to Latinos for fucks sake.  Instead we have the Biden campaign apparently not doing anything, actively saying "Latinos are not in our path to victory" or some such moronic thing.

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, SpaceChampion said:

Instead we have the Biden campaign apparently not doing anything, actively saying "Latinos are not in our path to victory" or some such moronic thing.

I agree Biden should be more focused on the hispanic vote, but who in the hell is actively saying that?

[SpaceChampion]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I agree Biden should be more focused on the hispanic vote, but who in the hell is actively saying that?

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-campaign-doesnt-consider-latinos-143056489.html

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, you're right that I woke up still drunk, but I can only get up on one side of my bed.  The other side is a wall.

Is this where I give you some shrooms and say, "There's an upside and a downside too, guy."?

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I really struggle to understand this.  So we have low information voters who:  

• get most of theirs news from conservative news sources like talk radio and Fox. 
• love the cut of Trump's gib (his political incorrectness, his anti-immigration stance, his "fearlessness" and willingness to attack anyone and anything, his status as a billionaire playboy). 
• are very conservative and genuinely believe that the Dems will take away their guns and religion. 
• love low taxes. 
• are horrified by the existence of abortion. 
• believe COVID is a hoax and Trump didn't do anything wrong. 
• Don't care whether the President engages in law-breaking or lacks character. 
• Are triggered by negative partisanship. 
• Are racist and hated the fact Obama became president. 

Which (or which combination) of these is true and to what extent?

This will explain it all -- because it's all baked into the nation from the gitgo, as many a work has been describing and explaining for decades, including the great trilogy of works by Richard Slotkin.  This is just the latest to join that library.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/13/how-the-south-won-the-civil-war-review-heather-cox-richardson-donald-trump