Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - honk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 58  Next >
Arts & Entertainment / Re: FES Book Club
« on: September 07, 2021, 04:29:54 AM »
The Peculiar Exploits of Brigadier Ffellowes
The Curious Quests of Brigadier Ffellowes

Two collections of fantasy short stories by Sterling E. Lanier. They center on the exploits of retired brigadier Donald Ffellowes, told by him to the patrons of a club he belongs to, always to mixed reactions of awe and skepticism. The basic format of an adventurer telling fantastical tall tales was pioneered by the Jorkens stories of Lord Dunsany (one of the most innovative and influential fantasy writers of all time, despite his relative obscurity - one day I'll discuss his works in greater detail), but where Joseph Jorkens is a comical figure and his tales are almost always goofy and lighthearted, Ffellowes's stories are grim and eerie in tone. That being said, I wouldn't go so far as to call them horror, as they're simply too action-packed, lively, and generally just fun.

The common theme that unites most of these stories is the idea of essentially recontextualizing ancient mythologies and folklore. In each story, Ffellowes encounters elements of or believers in a particular belief system, but sees it stripped of myth and presented in a more modern fantastical context. And typically, that means he discovers a monster or a cult at the bottom of it all. It's a great idea, and it's very enjoyable to see how Lanier interprets each religion. But then when the story focusing on Irish folklore comes around...this was such a groaner for me. The subject of Samhain, the Celtic harvest festival comes up, and the story makes it clear that the characters pronounce it as sam-hayne. It's actually a plot point. Ffellowes hears the name and thinks it's someone named "Sam Hayne," not realizing until the last second what it refers to. That's not how it's fucking pronounced. I've always heard it pronounced as sow-win, and I guess other regions have slightly different ways to pronounce it, like sah-win, but in no Celtic country has it ever been pronounced as sam-hayne. These stories were written back in the sixties, and I know they didn't have the Internet back then, but they had encyclopedias. Imagine just assuming that a foreign word is pronounced the same way an English word of the same spelling would be and not bothering to do any research to confirm it.

But that facepalm aside, these stories are delightful romps.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 02, 2021, 08:46:12 PM »
It's not off-topic at all to call attention to the fact that the people complaining about Biden's behavior are the exact same ones who ignored, shrugged off, or even supported similar antics from Trump. Standards for what is or isn't acceptable behavior are set by people, not ordained from on high, and so it's perfectly valid to question who it is that's setting the standards and what their criteria are.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 02, 2021, 03:37:58 AM »
So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?

Are you certain that's it's all the Republicans' fault in this and that Biden isn't a disrespectful buffoon?

Nope, not what was asked. Let's try that again:

So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?

Do you have a response to what Iceman actually asked? Not to the strawman in your head, but to the actual quote, right there in front of you. If it helps, I'll rephrase - why is it, after four years of turning a blind eye to the apathy and contempt regularly showed by the president towards veterans, fallen soldiers, and the families of fallen soldiers, that Republicans (and by extension, you) are now suddenly sticklers for showing the proper respect towards these people?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: September 02, 2021, 03:04:48 AM »
Twelve Minutes

A great premise very poorly executed. You play as a man trapped in a twelve-minute time loop in which a murderous cop barges into your apartment while you and your wife are trying to spend a quiet evening together, with tragic results. With every new time loop, you have a chance to learn something new about the situation - who this cop is, why he's doing this, how to stop him, what your wife knows about it, and hopefully, how to break the loop. The main problem for me - and make no mistake, this game has plenty of problems, but I don't feel the need to discuss them simply because this one by itself kills the whole experience for me - is that while this is a premise that cries out for player freedom and experimentation, the game refuses to oblige you. The number of interactable objects and environments in this setting is surprisingly quite low, and it soon becomes clear that there is only ever one way to achieve any given objective. There's only one way to incapacitate the cop. There's only one way to find out where an important item is hidden in the apartment. There's only one way to convince your wife you're in a time loop. Being forced to hunt for each arbitrary, highly-specific solution to each obstacle is no fun at all.

Also, the big twist ending of the game is a lazy cop-out and a thoroughly unnecessary attempt at "explaining" the existence of the time loop. It was all in the main character's head. None of the game's events actually happened, they were a manifestation of his guilty conscience. Interestingly enough, that's almost exactly the same stupid "explanation" that The Sexy Brutale had for its own time-loop premise, and it came across as really lame in that game too. Some time-loop games have pretty cool in-game explanations of their premises, but other games have no need of an explanation, and I wish that more writers would have the courage to just not bother trying to explain it all. Lots of weird things happen in video games that don't have in-game explanations.

Anyway, yeah, bad game, do not buy.

The Forgotten City

And here's a time-loop game that's actually quite good. You're trapped thousands of years in the past in an isolated Roman city where if anyone commits a crime, everyone in the city is turned to gold. Your only hope is to take advantage of how the day constantly repeats itself to find out what's going on, escape the city, and save its residents from their golden doom. To say much more about this game would be to ruin the mystery and overall sense of discovery. It's enough to say that this is a clever blend of dungeon-delving, political machinations, and thoughtful philosophy, all at a modest price. It's definitely worth your time and money.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 01, 2021, 04:11:10 AM »
It is claimed by multiple people that he checked his watch multiple times.

By grief-stricken parents whom by their own admission were already angry at Biden, and I suspect were also "primed" by the right-wing ghouls eager to turn this into a scandal:

I'm sorry for their losses, but I don't find their accounts particularly credible. They came to the event ready to lash out at Biden, and that's what was bound to happen no matter what he did or didn't do. It's far more likely that Biden looked at his watch once or twice during the ceremony, and then Darin Hoover unconsciously embellished that into a hyperbolic story of Biden looking at his watch all the time, like with every single casket.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about the issue during today’s press briefing by Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich. Here’s how the exchange went down:

Heinrich: “Some of the Gold Star families have criticized the president’s conduct at the dignified transfer. There was a father of one Marine who said the president shouldn’t be checking his watch every time a flag-draped transport case came out of the plane. And a sister of another Marine said that it felt like a fake and scripted apology. Was the President looking at his watch and does he have a message to those people who felt that they were offended?”

Psaki: “Well, I would say his message to all of the family members who were there, those who were not even in attendance, is that he is grateful to their sons and daughters, the sacrifice they made to the country. That he knows firsthand what it’s like to lose a child and the fact no one can tell you anything or say anything, or there’s no words that are going to fill that hole that is left by that.

He’s not going to speak to and I’m not going to speak to the private conversations. Of course, they have the right to convey whatever they would like. But I will tell you, from spending a lot of time with him over the past couple of days, that he was deeply impacted by these family members who he met just two days ago. That he talks about them frequently in meetings and the incredible service and sacrifice of their sons and daughters. That is not going to change their suffering, but I wanted to convey that still.”

What wasn’t said in the clip? Firstly, there was no denial, no attempt at spinning it into him looking at something else or doing something else rather than checking his watch.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there was no apology, no expression of regret, nothing.

If you’re not going to deny it, you should at the very least apologize for it. That didn’t happen today, as an apology did not come from Biden nor did it come from Psaki.

As I’ve often said, sometimes it’s what they *don’t* tell you that speaks volumes.

If Heinrich really wanted a firm yes/no answer about the watch, then she should asked that and just that. The second half of her question renders the first part of it essentially moot, because there's no way to address the watch without sounding like you're downplaying the feelings of the surviving family members. Just imagine Psaki trying to say, "First of all, the President was not looking at his watch. Second of all, his message to all of the family members who were there..." She'd be lambasted for that, and rightfully so. Heinrich's question forced Psaki to choose between talking about the watch or talking about the families, and I think it was intended to do so.

And of course Psaki wasn't going to legitimize a manufactroversy by apologizing for it, thereby essentially admitting that the criticism being aimed at Biden was totally valid and legitimate. It would be like Obama apologizing for the time he hurt Repubicans' feelings by wearing a tan suit. An apology isn't simply an act of courtesy in politics, it's an admission of guilt, and that's why you see them so rarely. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is, and until such time as that changes, it's disingenuous to attack a politician for doing what virtually any politician in the world would have done in that scenario - thread the needle of offering sympathy and comfort to the families without agreeing with their complaints about Biden.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: August 31, 2021, 10:06:46 PM »
Biden was not checking his watch during the ceremony, and the video proves it:

Another lie from right-wing media.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: August 31, 2021, 12:34:16 AM »
Speaking of Corn Pop, it's really interesting how that story is largely assumed to be an absurd lie and/or a sign of Biden going senile, largely based on the intuitive response people have that a gangster would never call themselves something silly like "Corn Pop," when the facts are actually on his side. Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that there's ironclad proof of the whole account being true, but at least one witness has corroborated Biden's story, and there's ample evidence that Corn Pop was a real person:

(Scroll down to the end for the update. It's ridiculous that this article is framed as "lol this guy totally roasted Biden for his bullshit story lol" and buries the lede of "oh btw the story is actually true" so far down, but it is a good summary of the evidence supporting Biden's account.)

It's a bit like how so many people believed that Trump's unguarded, impulsive manner of speech was indicative of his general honesty, and refused to seriously consider the overwhelming factual evidence of his frequent and outrageous lies. Intuition is useful, but people need to learn that it isn't always right, and shouldn't be stubbornly clung to when it's contradicted by clear facts.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: August 30, 2021, 03:37:33 PM »
an apologist for everything Trump did.

What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan. He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.

Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?

Well, there was that time we had a terrible pandemic and Trump spent several months insisting that there was no problem, it wasn't a big deal, and it would go away by itself very quickly, and also indirectly encouraged his followers to refuse to wear a mask in public. We'll never know what would have happened if there had been a competent president in the Oval Office rather than someone asleep at the wheel, but hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead, and Trump must bear some responsibility for that.

Also, the discussion was about Biden's behavior and mannerisms being "embarrassing" to a certain type of conservative who supported Trump. I'm in full agreement with AATW that that is the height of hypocrisy after four years of Trump's bullying, insults, and general boorish behavior.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: August 21, 2021, 04:37:39 AM »
Alan Wake

This is a very bad game, and one that almost perfectly exemplifies one of the worst trends I've noticed in story-driven games - completely divorcing the story from the gameplay. Look, if you want to make a game that's more about the story than the actual gameplay, that's fine. There's more than one way to make a good game, and just as great gameplay can be enough to overlook a weak story, a great story can also be enough to overlook weak gameplay. But you have to do it right, and by that I mean that the gameplay must tell the story. That doesn't mean that the gameplay necessarily has to be particularly unusual or profound. It can be as simple as killing lots of enemies, provided that the story is reflective of you needing to kill lots of enemies, like if it's set in wartime and the main character is a soldier.

Alan Wake does not do that. The story of the game is at first the main character searching for his vanished wife in a mysterious small town, which later turns into something more complex when he realizes that an ancient cosmic power is making him write a book that's magically destined to come true. The gameplay, however, is mostly just you trekking from one end of a dark forest to another while fighting off zombie-like enemies the whole time. None of it advances the story in the slightest, because the story is not about traveling through the woods or fighting zombies. The story is a relationship drama and a metatextual rumination on the power of fiction, and 100% of this story is communicated through the cutscenes. If the way the hero traveled to each plot-critical location was by climbing into a spaceship and blowing up an alien armada before landing at his destination, the story would be unaffected. If he tunneled under the earth and fought an army of mole-men with mystical martial arts before emerging at his destination, the story would be unaffected. I don't think I've ever a ludonarrative disconnect this pronounced in any game before.

The above would be a fatal flaw in the game even if the story, taken as its own separate thing, was truly great. But it's not. There's an interesting central conceit to the story, but the execution is bungled by clunky prose, awkward, inhuman dialogue, and the characters all being either bland and forgettable or too obnoxious to take seriously. Alan Wake himself comes across as aloof and thoroughly unlikable, his design is of course that of another generic dark-haired white guy, and the game's efforts to demonstrate what a great writer he supposedly is by filling the game with samples of his florid, overblown writing and endless narration are just laughable. Seeing untalented writers try and write like how they think a talented writer would write reminds me of the morons at Bethesda trying to write dialogue options for supposedly intelligent or persuasive characters. The gameplay is similarly lacking. You point a flashlight at the enemies, all of which are very similar, and then shoot them with your guns, all of which are very basic video game weapons. You do this about a million times over the course of eight or so hours. Most levels take place in the same dark woods and look almost identical, and your objective is very rarely anything more interesting than "reach the next point on the map." To call it dull and repetitive would be an understatement.

To reiterate, this game blows chimp, and I have no idea why it got so much praise from reviewers, even after reading the reviews in question. Like, I don't believe that anyone who's played more than a handful of video games in their life could find this gameplay tense or frightening at all. Because it's not, and I would know. I'm scared shitless of horror games, and I didn't so much as raise an eyebrow out of fear at anything in Alan Wake. It's simply not a scary game. Likewise, I'm a little puzzled by how many reviewers praised the "episodic" nature of the game, meaning that the game would occasionally just flash the title screen and say that it was the end of episode whatever. Why is that so laudable? Seriously, how does splitting the game up into episodes actually make the game any better or more enjoyable in any kind of substantive way? I would argue that it doesn't, and to single it out as an especially praiseworthy detail rings a little false. I can't help but feel that something was a little fishy with this game's reception.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: August 17, 2021, 12:12:45 AM »

Really glad this didn't happen. Evil/antagonistic Superman is boring and played out by now. It's bad enough that that shitty-looking Suicide Squad game from Rocksteady will have evil Superman in it too. And yes, it looks shitty. I mean, I'm almost certainly going to play it anyway, but it looks very bad:

Why are people praising this? It looks terrible! Anyway, yeah, I'm tired of evil Superman. Give me good Superman for once.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: August 08, 2021, 04:29:50 AM »
Yes, the second one. We are specifically discussing The Suicide Squad, not to be confused with Suicide Squad. It's an odd choice of title, and one that's undoubtedly puzzling to casual moviegoers who want to know about its connection to the first SS. Similarly, everyone involved with the movie has played coy whenever they've been asked about how the films are related. I can see where they're coming from. On the one hand, 2016's SS was an incompetent clusterfuck and a critical disaster, so they want to keep their distance from it. On the other hand, it was also (for reasons that I will never, ever understand) a big financial success with staying power in the box office, so they don't want to keep too much of a distance from it. Will playing both sides work to this movie's commercial advantage? Let's wait and see!

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: August 07, 2021, 02:21:34 PM »
I agree. It's very smartly written, there's a ton of visual comedy (as opposed to just quips) that had me laughing hard, the cast is terrific, and there's a solid, sincere story under all the gore and shock value. Also, while I think most people who paid close attention to the trailers could probably have seen it coming, I still loved the bait-and-switch of the movie's beginning. It's so amusingly mean-spirited. My only real issue, and it's a very minor one, is that I think the movie could have done without Waller's trio of snarky assistants, or at least toned them down a bit. They're not funny, and there's something about the way they talk and act that feels very forced and unnatural, like they're trying way too hard to be all cool and unfazed. Their swearing in particular sounds incredibly contrived. It's always something like, "Wow, what the FUCK is going on?" or "Look at all the SHIT that's happened!" with them. But like I said, that's a purely personal nitpick. This is an awesome movie.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 03, 2021, 01:12:36 AM »

Another Trump loyalist thrown under the bus now that he's no longer of use. It really is amazing how people can support a man with such a long history of fucking over almost everyone close to him. If this is how he deals with notable, influential people who have contributed significantly to his success, what makes you think that you, an ordinary person with comparatively very little to offer him, would get any better treatment if push came to shove? Trump cares about his wealth, power, and public image. He doesn't care about you, has never cared about you, and would sell you out along with every principle he's ever claimed to hold in a heartbeat if he thought it would better serve his only real goal of improving his wealth, power, and public image.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: July 29, 2021, 03:45:02 AM »
Nolan's action scenes definitely worked better from a storytelling perspective, but as far as style and choreography went, they were severely lacking.

Just look at how slow and ungainly Batman is.  I mean, I wouldn't want to fight him or anything, but I don't buy him as any kind of brilliant martial artist capable of taking on crowds of enemies and winning.

God, this movie had such awful fight choreography. The previous two movies had some pretty lame fights as well, but at least there were comparatively less of them, with most of the action being chase scenes or races against time instead. For whatever reason, Rises emphasizes straightforward fisticuffs, and it all looks so, so bad, even when the hits are connecting. Tom Hardy as Bane is even less convincing as a supposed expert combatant than Bale, and he's not particularly believable as the physical powerhouse the movie tries to sell him as, either.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: July 20, 2021, 04:19:12 AM »
Black Widow (Cate Shortland, 2021)

It's okay. A few fun action setpieces, a couple of charming performances, and due to its odd status as a sort of midquel to Civil War, this is the first MCU production in years to not be swamped by self-congratulatory circlejerking about "blip blip blip Tony Tony Tony look at all this continuity let's play some clips from the previous movies," which is kind of refreshing. But this movie has some big problems. There's the action, for one thing. In the first act, all the action seems grittier and more lo-fi than is usual for the MCU. Characters slam each other into walls violently, they grab each other by the throat while their faces clench in pain, they gasp for breath as soon as the fighting is over, etc. But once the middle act rolls around, we're back to the more fanciful approach to action that's normal for the MCU, and now a kick from a normal woman launches people several feet backwards, a normal woman can survive being in a car that explodes and is launched a hundred feet with only minor cuts and bruises, and so on. I have no problem with maintaining a willing suspension of disbelief for a capeshit movie, or any action movie at all, but there has to be consistency. You can't just hop from one extreme to another.

And that's not all. The editing of the action scenes is really weird. On a number of occasions, time seems to just sort of skip forward several seconds in the fight for no real reason. It's like, you'll see a character throwing a punch at another, and in the next second, the second character is landing their punch on the first instead. Or a character will reach for their side, and then suddenly they already have a gun in their hand and they're already firing. It sounds nuts, but I swear it happens! There must have been at least half a dozen instances of this, probably more, and it's just baffling to me. If they were trying to go for some sort of unique style by cutting time out of the action scenes like that, it didn't work. It's disconcerting, unpleasant, and jarring every time it happens.

More assorted thoughts. As much fun as it was to see Taskmaster fighting by mimicking the Avengers' fighting styles, the character doesn't have enough screen time to really make their presence worthwhile. I would have saved them for another movie. I also suspect that the character's radically re-imagined origins and gender flip pissed off the usual chuds, so we'll see what the consequences of that will be in the coming weeks and months. The Wolverine tease was a great moment, and a perfect example of how to do that kind of teasing fanservice well (in stark contrast to, say, the Pietro fake-out in WandaVision). David Harbour carries most of the film's comedy on his back and does an admirable job of it, and Florence Pugh, whose character Marvel is clearly positioning as the "new" Black Widow, is a charismatic presence I'd love to see more of in the MCU. Let's hope it doesn't take another twenty movies before someone finally decides to let her have her own film.

In short, it's definitely one of the weaker MCU movies, but it's okay. A harmless way to spend two hours.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 16, 2021, 06:37:20 AM »
The debunk article which claimed it was false that the World Economic Forum wanted us to own nothing was clearly a lie. The WEF authored a Forbes article about it:

That's the exact same article the Reuters piece discussed, and I linked to it a few posts back. You haven't discovered anything new here; you're just revealing that you haven't been paying attention to the things you're responding to. So, like the Reuters piece said, the existence of that article does not mean that the scenario described therein is a "goal" for the WEF or something they've set an "agenda" for, and like I said, the scenario is impossible with today's technology.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 15, 2021, 01:39:29 AM »
Not to further a great reset discussion when it comes to Covid, but just as an aside, as Tom put it, "I just presented the data. You can make of it as you will."

Fact check: The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people own nothing by 2030

A video repeating misinformation about the World Economic Forum (WEF) has been shared widely on Facebook.

The WEF does not have a ‘stated goal’ to remove everyone’s private property by 2030. As addressed in previous Reuters fact checks, these claims likely originated from a WEF social media video from 2016 that stated eight predictions about the world in 2030, including: “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy. What you want you’ll rent, and it’ll be delivered by drone.”

Danish politician Ida Auken, who wrote the prediction in question (here), said it was not a “utopia or dream of the future” but “a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse.”

In a written update, she clarified that the piece aimed to “start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.”

Adding on to that point, I'd argue that Auken's article, which you can read for yourself here, isn't really a serious prediction for 2030 at all. It's more a piece of speculative fiction than anything else. Maybe in a hundred years time, the scenario it describes might be a real possibility, but certainly not in ten.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: July 04, 2021, 04:38:51 PM »
Of course it is oppression.
That is oppression. "Hey doctor, I know you have decades of medical experience but I'm a woman and you are wrong. Don't agree? Welp, let's take your livelihood from you". It is absolutely oppression. Think like me or be punished is oppression, Honk.

Having a different opinion is not an excuse to deliberately be unpleasant to others in a professional environment. That's what these people were fired for - not for having the wrong opinion, and not for simply disagreeing with the concept of transgenderism to begin with - but for refusing to use the preferred pronouns of people they came into contact with. It's no different to having policies against bullying, harassment, or anti-social behavior in general. You have to treat people with respect at work, no matter what opinions you have of them.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: July 02, 2021, 02:46:34 AM »
And they were denied that by God. It's the way they were made. Not cruel men subjecting them to it.

There's nothing we can do about the way they were made, but we can do something about their continued treatment by society.

Also ... why is living the gender you identify as, suddenly an inalienable right?

Because being forced to live as the gender you don't identify as is an extremely traumatic and confusing way to go through life. It's easy for most people to take it for granted that the way you walk, talk, dress, socialize, etc. is exactly how society expects you to do it, but what if it wasn't? Imagine - and please don't dodge this by talking about how it can't happen or shouldn't happen or if it did then it would be everyone else's problem and not yours - that tomorrow everyone started treating you like a woman. You'd be expected to dress like a woman, talk like a woman, be romantically interested in men, etc., and you'd get funny looks and be treated like a weirdo when you instead engaged in your usual male behaviors. Wouldn't that fuck you up? Nobody should have to deal with that.

Sounds pretty entitled to me. Especially as you impose yourself on everyone else, policing their speech

You are not being oppressed by having to refer to people by the name they want and as the gender they want. It's just basic courtesy, something that you're already very familiar with through life in modern society.

invading their changing rooms just so you can maintain a fantasy in your head...[women] are uncomfortable with it. We know this because they complain about it. Why does the comfort of a mentally ill man trump that of perfectly sane women?

The comfort of the trans community is about whether or not they're allowed to live their life as a member of the gender they identify with, something of life-altering consequences to them. The comfort of the complaining women is apparently based on a) paranoid fears of predators waiting to be allowed access to women's spaces so they can victimize the women within, which doesn't even make any logical sense to begin with, and b) absurdly prudish fears of accidentally catching a glimpse of a transwoman's genitals. That's why the trans community's comfort trumps the complainers' comfort - because they have a sound reason to be allowed into women's spaces, while the complainers have nonsensical reasons to not allow them there.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 01, 2021, 01:19:25 AM »
I think it would take something extraordinary, and probably something not strictly white-collar like tax evasion or campaign finance law violations, for Trump himself to be in any danger of prosecution.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 58  Next >