What I meant more is that the industry isn't really the ones responsible for promoting such disgusting behavior. It's largely a segment of their audience that is displaying such appalling conduct.
__________________
Allan Glenn. 1984-2005 RIP
Under no circumstances should Quentin Tarantino be allowed to befoul Star Trek.
What I meant more is that the industry isn't really the ones responsible for promoting such disgusting behavior. It's largely a segment of their audience that is displaying such appalling conduct.
ETA: What the holy hell?!!!?
I tried to paste a link to a gizmodo article and it created a pile of garbage that was so long the post wont allow me to edit and save without deleting it.
Wow. Just wow. That is a totally self defeating attitude. Seriously, you can a show because girls are the primary audience? They don't buy the toys? Motherfucker, do some market research and develop products girls will buy!
That kind of thinking is the shit that should get you fired from your job for sheer mind numbing incompetence. If you can't figure out how to sell tie in merchandise to a female audience that loves your show, you're too fucking stupid to be in the position you're in.
__________________
Allan Glenn. 1984-2005 RIP
Under no circumstances should Quentin Tarantino be allowed to befoul Star Trek.
IKR!
It's so short sighted. Like these are all fans that turn into adults willing to plonk down sizable amounts of money for conventions, group showings, fashion accessories, etc. Hell I know some nerds who have custom made TNG starfleet corsets cause fan accessories aren't just for kids. Having life long fans with money really smooths over them not buying stuff as children.
ETA: What the holy hell?!!!?
I tried to paste a link to a gizmodo article and it created a pile of garbage that was so long the post wont allow me to edit and save without deleting it.
Those entertainment blogs like Gizmodo, the Mary Sue, Jalopnik, etc use some format that's prone to that. Maybe it's an ad that occasionally pops up, I don't know why. It just.... happens. Always use preview.
eta: or do what you did and ask in the Forum Admin section.
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
I find both those advertisements underwhelming. All you learn in the Amy McGrath advertisement is that she wants to preserve the ACA (something I agree with in the absence of Medicare for All), but she makes no mention of how it can be improved. She doesn't touch on the biggest issue that is money in politics being behind the rot in our government. She spends more time talking about her career as a fighter pilot than she does about her policy platforms.
The Randy Bryce advertisement is even worse. He goes on repeatedly like a broken record about how he's has a working class background and how it will help him work for his constituents in Congress. Again, there is no mention of what policies he'll fight for. He makes no mention of the corrupting, rotting influence of money in the political system, nor does he propose any policies that might help working class residents of Wisconsin get a leg up.
Both these ads were full of style and no substance. I give them a high score for emotional manipulation, but a zero on providing voters information on why they should vote for them. If this is the best they can do, I won't be expecting them to be sworn in the with the rest of the 2019 Congress.
__________________
Allan Glenn. 1984-2005 RIP
Under no circumstances should Quentin Tarantino be allowed to befoul Star Trek.
Elections aren't won on discussions of policy minutiae, much as we'd like them to be. More than anything, they require a compelling narrative. Both these ads have those in spades.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
All you learn in the Amy McGrath advertisement is that she wants to preserve the ACA (something I agree with in the absence of Medicare for All), but she makes no mention of how it can be improved.
People don't even really understand how the ACA works. And announcement ads aren't typically full of policy detail. These ads most likely aren't even going to be on TV because they're too long (portions could be, I suppose).
Quote:
She doesn't touch on the biggest issue that is money in politics being behind the rot in our government.
[...]
He makes no mention of the corrupting, rotting influence of money in the political system
Your biggest issue is not most people's biggest issue. Despite its inability to motivate MonCapitan, I don't except that McGrath or Bryce's ability to win in 2018 will depend on whether or not they make detailed ads about Citizens United and campaign finance reform. They'll just have to do without you as a volunteer, I guess.
Quote:
She spends more time talking about her career as a fighter pilot than she does about her policy platforms.
[...]
nor does he propose any policies that might help working class residents of Wisconsin get a leg up.
Hillary Clinton and her people wrote up a bunch of detailed white papers including plenty of policies that would've helped working class folks. Of course, her ads were less about these economic policies, so maybe you have a point
Except she lost to a guy who talked about being a billionaire businessman dealmaker and used that as his big qualification and whose major proposed policies included building a wall 1500 miles from Wisconsin and replacing the ACA with "something terrific" (I think we can agree that "something terrific" doesn't really count as proposing a policy). So I think we can afford to have some candidates talk about being working class or overcoming obstacles.
Quote:
If this is the best they can do, I won't be expecting them to be sworn in the with the rest of the 2019 Congress.
Not sure how you're making this connection. What do winning campaigns' advertisements look like? Do they look like what MonCap likes? How do you know?
She's talking policy, she's talking about the corrupting influence of lobbyists and big money paying for ads and such. She attacks her opponent because he was a lobbyist.
So, how'd she do?
She lost by 9 pts. And it's not because of incumbency, it was an open seat.
Well, she probably did better than Clinton, who didn't run ads about the corrupting influence of campaign finance, right?
No, Clinton ran a couple points ahead of Teachout, losing that district by about 7 pts.
So first, there's that thing where it is always the stupidest men who say that men are smarter than women, and it's a special kind of frustrating to consistently have idiots talking down to you. But also, I mean, I'm pretty sure I could beat that guy up, and it's a differently special kind of frustrating that that sort of thing is not allowed.
The amusing thing is that compared to many other animals our sexual dimorphism is pretty small. There's a reason so many women were able to fake being men to fight in wars.
Modern scanning techniques have revealed no structural or processing differences in brains between men and women. Some regions were slightly larger or smaller than others, but which ones varied so much between person that they had to make a gradient of 'maleness or femaleness' (based on average region sizes) and the vast majority of brains had to be put somewhere along the gradient. It gets even more fun when they realized that larger brain regions don't automatically correlate to better use as in many regions the processing power is based on surface area and not volume. Even with the best scanning equipment available an expert in the field wouldn't be able to identify the sex of someone by just their brain.
Every study that's claimed men think one way and women another is based on analyzing how people complete different tasks and then making assumptions from that.
A few years back a game came out that sounded p cool. At the time I didn't pick it up on account of a) being in the poors and not willing to drop money on a whole new game b) not having a machine that would run it worth a damn and c) likely not being very good at it. But otherwise, I loved the idea of it. Not necessarily just the setting but the game mechanic it was offering.
The game Shadow of Mordor is set in Tolkien's Middle Earth, before the events of the books and movies - though I think after Hobbit, I'm not sure. Purists of the Lore should stop reading now lest they suffer the vapours. It parts from what should be doable in that the main character, a man, is inhabited, partially possessed and or haunted by the spirit of an elf. Not just any elf, but The Elf what forged a few of the Rings of Power.
The game mechanic used lets the player create their own allies and enemies within the ranks of Sauron's forces to prepare the way for the turning of the tide of the coming fight.
ANYWAY.
Now there's an expansion of this alt-lore, or a new game that expands on it. This time the player as Talion/Celebrimbor ally with Shelob to do some stuff. You remember Shelob, right? The ancient horrible ungoliant thing laying in wait? The big honkin deadly spider thing?
Being a big Whedon fanboy, I don't know what to say. It's a terrible defense to say "cheating on your spouse doesn't make one a bad feminist, just a bad person." But things get squickier reading about affairs with underlings. Even if consensual, it's in that same ethical territory as professor/student relationships.
Being a big Whedon fanboy, I don't know what to say. It's a terrible defense to say "cheating on your spouse doesn't make one a bad feminist, just a bad person." But things get squickier reading about affairs with underlings. Even if consensual, it's in that same ethical territory as professor/student relationships.
Well you can be good at your job and still be a complete
Metal singer calls out groping a crowdsurfer in the show.
'So, i've been going over in my f*cking mind about whether I should say something about what I saw during that last song....' @Architectsukpic.twitter.com/zm5L4zlXpw
I have plenty to say about Joss, but until then, here's James Cameron explaining how we don't need Wonder Woman because she doesn't look like how he pictures a strong female character and he should know strong female characters afterall 26 years ago he gave us T2 Sarah Connon and that's good enough!
As I said in another thread, his infidelity is really disappointing. I lost a lot of respect for him from reading about that.
Quote:
This is also a lot of thought for food. The one point I would make in contention is that the strong female characters always win (iirc) but otherwise yeah, it's troubling to ponder his catalog through that lens.
I'm willing to bet that Joss Whedon believed (and still believes) that he's a feminist. I don't think he's claiming feminism because he thinks it will get him more favorable exposure. I expect he genuinely thinks men and women should be equal.
It's just that his belief doesn't translate into any kind of action. It's a cognitive trap that says, "I believe X, and that makes me a good person!"