Love seeing more Edward Gorey

I don’t know how people got that take from Tropic Thunder when they explicitly make reference inside the movie to how messed up and wrong it was. Like, that was the joke. RDJ was playing a character so full of himself that took method acting to it’s extreme. Am I missing something? Id love to be educated

It was a mumbled yes. After Mehdi asked her ten times. Only to be followed by ‘but but but’. Gotta be careful what we say about Putin, right? No problem with Biden though. Clear and emphatic out of the gate YES

Why can’t it be a yes full stop? The same way she did for two others?

It’s yes but with an excuse. It’s not a hard yes. It shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. She seems to have no difficulty saying that for Biden. What gives?

Why can’t it be yes, full stop? The same way she did for Biden and Netanyahu?

Saying yes with no many qualifiers is insane level of weaseling.

Heres a simple example:

“did you rape that woman” “yes”

vs

“yes she was asking for it”

Is not the same. That’s what she’s doing.

Saying yes then loading it with ten thousand qualifiers is not a clear yes. Nice try though.

Wrong. Her answer is ‘yes’ followed by a million qualifiers. Because for sugar daddy Putin we need to use the softest padded gloves. We’re not stupid. The ruse is up.

How come she can give a clear yes for Biden but Putis it has to be surrounded by a million qualifiers? Multiple times.

We all watched the interview. What are you trying to prove.

Give the full exchange. I watched the full interview. She said “we condemn his actions”. She never could in a full sentence condemn him. It’s gotta be loaded with qualifiers, and even THEN nothing of value comes out of her mouth. It shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. It’s a simple yes/no.

This was an interesting book (although their economic analysis is not great). I think by now all the atrocities of the CIA are pretty well documented and the world is pretty informed. This book focuses on a period that took place about 75 years ago when the US (under Nixon, JFK and Reagan) had a strong anti-communist stance and active policy.

That policy is to longer an actionable framework for the US. It wouldnt be fair to attribute the current agency the same level of culpability. I’m not saying the current CIA is beyond scrutiny but times have changed and the world has moved significantly beyond the so called dangers of the cold war.

Are they still around though? I think they filed for bankruptcy. The jeezus wannabe ceo was a good con artist.

I just imagine Pim Toole grabbing the cash with his eyes closed as Lauren slides it across the table.

Just them going after Adobe is enough for Kamala to get my vote. Fuck Adobe.

Lego has shifted (or is trying to shift) towards a more plant based, biodegradable plastic. They have to put a big effort because their entire product line is based on a material that has (rightfully so) negative connotations.

Man, the straw man was about having access to the internet as an example of uncensored access to information invalidating book moderation. It wasn’t about equivocating between different degrees of offending narratives. I was just following the principle to its final conclusion.

It doesn’t have to be a snuff film. That was an example or meant to be a hypothetical to further the discussion. I don’t see how nitpicking it is constructive if it sidesteps my point.

Now we get to an actual strawman -Finally! My position has never been the banning of all books, but rather questioning if moderation is useful or not. You can’t say that the logical conclusion of some moderation is total banning because it doesn’t follow.

The person I replied to said internet exists so banning books is worthless anyway which is not a terrible argument. I think it’s worth considering it 2024. I was just taking the hypothetical to its extreme conclusion to test if it was still a principled position to have. I think we all agree at this point.

Anyway. I’m not pro banning and I appreciate the convo so thanks.

Cheers!

I totally agree. Thanks for contributing your perspective. I really appreciate it. I think the only factor perhaps to consider is liability. The internet is completely decentralized so the onus is more spread out maybe? I’m gonna think on this a little but I do concede that you make a good point in that the info is already out there. Twenty years ago our conversation might have sounded totally different.

Thanks!

It’s called “reductio ad absurdio”. It’s a method in philosophy to examine arguments/principles by taking to the most extreme example and it’s what came to mind. Again, I personally am not for banning. I’m just playing devil’s advocate.

So far all the arguments brought by repubs in favor of banning have not convinced me. The only thing so far has been conversations with my wife who is a teacher.

To be clear, I’m just musing on an internet forum because censorship is an interesting topic to me. I’m not on the “pro-ban camp”.

Edit: also it’s not a “straw man” if it logically follows from the original premise. People : stop throwing this expression around unless you really understand how logical fallacies work.

I honestly think it’s just a resource issue. If there are enough staffers and teachers around then there really should be a problem. The main counter my wife (a teacher) gave is that most school districts just don’t have the necessary staff to moderate/work with the kids.

I expected people would bring up personal anecdotes to justify things.

I’m sorry about your experience. I’m glad you didn’t kill anyone. When we talk about policy, we’re talking about something that can be scaled. That’s why when we pass legislation it’s not helpful to look at single individual examples but at the broader picture.

I have nothing against kids exploring moral quandaries. We are talking about who takes the responsibility of delivering the content.

When my wife was a teacher, a 12 year old commitei suicide at home, which is insanely rare. Now, this kid was completely neglected at home. Should we allow kids to check out books that encourage suicide? Should the school district take on that liability? I know this is also an anecdotal example, but it’s interesting to explore the other perspective no?