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: < Back  1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 78  Next >
61
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 26, 2023, 05:13:15 PM »
Yes, the deal is for truthful testimony, just like it is with all witnesses who flip, and truthful testimony must therefore be damaging to Trump, because otherwise the prosecution wouldn't be making deals with these witnesses to testify to begin with. I don't think I can put it any more simply than that. The prosecution is not on Trump's side. They are not trying to help him. If they're asking people to testify and making deals with them to that effect, it's because their testimony will hurt Trump. That's how this works. That's how it's always worked. You're quibbling about a distinction without a difference.

62
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 26, 2023, 03:21:37 PM »
I think it would be a big mistake to stop making deals on the assumption that the case is "sealed" and further evidence is unnecessary. The more evidence we can get to hammer in as firmly as possible the fact of Trump's corruption, the better off we as a nation will be in the long run. We won't be able to kill off the cult of Trump within our lifetimes, but future generations at least should be able to accept Trump's corruption as a substantiated historical fact, not a controversial gray area of history that nobody really knows the truth about.

63
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 23, 2023, 12:16:45 AM »
You don't need to bother pretending she's on your side. Trump will no doubt be yelling about how he's never even heard of her and also that he never liked her to begin with, if he hasn't done so already.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/22/politics/trump-sidney-powell/index.html

64
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 21, 2023, 09:30:05 PM »
You are arguing that some kind of hidden language is being employed here, but that wouldn't work. What happens when Powell doesn't "flip" against Trump and supports his narrative and claims that she was "testifying truthfully"?

The same thing that happens to any co-defendant who is expected to flip and then reneges; evidence is produced to impeach them and discredit their testimony, and the deal is called off because of their dishonesty. Prosecutors are not taking a gamble when they offer a witness a deal to testify in the hopes that they'll say something that will hurt another defendant. They know what the facts of the case are, they know what the answers to the questions they ask are, and presumably they're prepared to handle a witness who tries to be tricky. I'm sure they have to phrase any deal they make carefully so as not to say that a specific kind of testimony from her is what's being rewarded, and I'm also sure that they wouldn't make such a clumsy mistake in a case as high-profile as this one.

65
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 21, 2023, 12:37:45 AM »
If Powell didn't have damaging testimony to offer against Trump or other defendants, her testimony wouldn't have been a condition of the deal. The prosecution is not going to put her on the stand so she can testify that Trump is totally innocent. You can quibble about how actually she's just agreeing to testify truthfully and not specifically to testify against anyone else, but in practice it comes down to the same thing.

That being said, I think it's far too early to be celebrating over this. This wouldn't be the first time - or even the second time - that someone was convicted for being an accessory or accomplice to one of Trump's crimes while Trump himself walked free. There's something deeply paradoxical about that, but it's the reality.

66
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 06:59:15 PM »
Tom's right, guys. Pleading guilty to misdemeanors is a huge win for Powell. Frankly, I'm extremely jealous of her. One day maybe I'll be lucky enough to plead guilty to a misdemeanor too.

Criticizing the military is not morally wrong at all.

Period.

End of sentence.

Do you realize that there's an actual context to what's being discussed here? The subject under discussion here isn't whether or not criticizing the military is inherently morally wrong (of course it's not), but why it's generally seen as conservative dogma that the military should never be criticized or insulted, and then those same conservatives ignore or downplay the contempt that Trump regularly shows for the military. I've allowed for the possibility that this dogma may have shifted somewhat since Trump's election, but no - once Biden was elected, conservatives promptly began scolding him for disrespecting - or just seeming to disrespect - the military the same way they regularly did with Obama. And now that Trump is campaigning again and his usual lack of respect for the military is making the news, conservatives have once more dropped into apathy.

67
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 03:24:02 PM »
You don't need to bother pretending she's on your side. Trump will no doubt be yelling about how he's never even heard of her and also that he never liked her to begin with, if he hasn't done so already.

Also, it's not polarizing to point out that a stance of "criticizing/insulting the military is morally wrong" should logically apply to everyone regardless of whether or not you like them.

68
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 18, 2023, 03:02:02 AM »
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-calling-military-officials-dumbest-people-applauded-1835218

This wouldn't necessarily be a big deal if not for how regularly and openly conservatives fetishize venerating the military. They got mad when Obama saluted a soldier with the same hand that was holding a drink. They got mad when Biden (allegedly) looked at his watch during a military funeral. But Trump is now demonstrating his contempt for the military quite plainly, and just like they did the last dozen or so times he did something similar, they're completely ignoring it. It's such a blatant, obvious double standard. Disrespecting the military, or even just seeming to disrespect the military, is monstrous when it's a Democrat. But when it's Trump, it's not a big deal and anyone who complains is a triggered snowflake.

69
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: October 11, 2023, 04:46:27 PM »
No, there are other large actors who can act well, or at least considerably better than Momoa. But then again, I don't think Aquaman needed to be played by an enormous guy to begin with. I'm pretty sure that Momoa was mostly cast because of his history of playing fierce badass characters, and they wanted to preemptively push back against people making jokes about how lame Aquaman is. Personally, I think that worrying so much about people making jokes on the Internet is a poor priority for a film studio, but, alas, Hollywood has yet to take advice from me.

And yes, capeshit is my biggest issue in life, as it should be for everyone.

70
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: October 11, 2023, 02:11:21 AM »
I've watched Blue Beetle. It's decent. Xolo MaridueƱa is charismatic and likable as Jaime, and his family are endearing - there's a dumb running gag about his grandmother that gets old very fast in the latter half of the movie, but that's my only complaint there. The action scenes are nice and creative, as they should be for a capeshitter like this. I really like the setting, which does what so many previous DC movies refused to do and takes advantage of the fact that this is an entirely fictional city to give it a unique sense of character. Palmera City is bright, glittering, and enticing, a seemingly idyllic paradise for the wealthy and well-connected...and an unattainable dream for impoverished families like the Reyes, who live in a humble working-class neighborhood on the city's outskirts and are treated with disdain by its more fortunate residents. And on a related note, there's some very nice and topical social commentary about what living in America means for a Hispanic family nowadays, and the male members of the family promote a wholesome and non-toxic sense of masculinity, which I don't think we see a lot of in pop culture nowadays.

There are, unfortunately, some downsides to the movie. Susan Sarandon as the main villain gives a very weird, very campy, almost deliberately unnaturalistic performance. I don't know what the idea behind it was, but it doesn't work well. Bruna Marquezine isn't a bad actress, but she's miscast as Jaime's love interest, a character who's supposed to be a privileged, wealthy socialite whose compassion stands in contrast to her aunt's callousness, and yet is initially received with hostility by the Reyes family because of her elite status. Marquezine's ethnicity and very strong Brazilian accent work against these dynamics. I'm not saying there aren't any rich Brazilians; only that in this movie, in this setting, I really think they would have been better off casting a white or white-passing American actress. It's not like this movie is suffering from a lack of diversity. Oh, and it really drives me nuts how while Jaime explicitly makes a point of never killing anyone, his family and love interest in the final act kill lots and lots of people. Very directly killing people, too, as in by pointing guns at them and shooting them dead. It really undermines the strength of whatever no-killing moral they were trying to go for.

The biggest problem with the movie, though, is that it all feels a bit too generic and familiar. We've met all these characters before, seen these tropes before, heard this dialogue before, and so on. It's hard to give specific examples of this - the two I could most easily point to are that the working-class family dynamic feels like it's already been covered by the Shazam! movies, and the idea of Jaime inheriting a legacy from an older, tech-savvy hero who bolsters him with his technology feels like it comes from the MCU spoder. It's just a general feeling I get that so much of this movie is running over tired, well-worn ground. Is it fair to judge a movie based on what other movies have done before? Well, to a degree, yes. Given the current glut of capeshit, movies have to work harder to stand out from the crowd now. This lack of originality may be a big part of why so many capeshit movies are flopping at the box office when ten years or so ago most of them did very well.

Oh, and this is a minor point, but I don't care for this movie's in-name-only adaptation of OMAC. It reminds me of the in-name-only version of "Intergang" from Black Adam. I would really rather that movies not bother using the names of characters and organizations from the source material if they bear no actual resemblance to the source material. No adaptation is better than an in-name-only adaptation.

Also, we finally have a trailer for the last DCEU film until Gunn's Superman movie:



Right off the bat, this trailer hits us with a voiceover warning us of what I can already guarantee will be a major flaw in the movie, just like it was in the previous one - Momoa's sheer inability to move out of his comfort zone of playing a chill dudebro. Maybe the people I've argued with about this before have a point in that I shouldn't say he "plays himself," but if it simplifies things, I'll just say that Momoa apparently can't do drama. He can deliver a joke, he can handle an action scene, and he can be a very likable and charismatic screen presence, but he can't effectively portray a lead character that goes through the ups and downs, the peaks and valleys of a conventional movie and emerges from the end of it as a different person. Changing his tone of voice from line to line in this voiceover is the least he could do, the very least, and he doesn't do it. Maybe he can't do it, or maybe he refuses to do it because he thinks it'll hurt his brand, like how Dwayne Johnson refuses to ever lose a fight in a movie because he thinks it would hurt his brand. No ill will towards Momoa; I'm sure he's a great guy in real life, but I've grown tired of his stock "chillax, bro, let's get wasted tonight!" performance.

The rest of the trailer looks okay for the most part. It's probably a good idea to keep building on the characters from the first movie rather than introducing a bunch of new ones. Check out how they're basically pretending Amber Heard isn't even in this movie - and compare it to how everyone at the studio fell over themselves going to bat for Ezra Miller after their spree of violent crimes. Hmm. The CGI unfortunately looks poor once again, although nothing jumps out as being as terrible as it was in The Flash. I guess there's nothing we can do about that as long as Marvel continues to overwhelm the VFX industry and work them ragged with their current oversaturation of content. Finally, check out another article basically predicting that this is going to be a disaster:

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/aquaman-2-jason-momoa-drunk-claims-amber-heard-cut-scenes-elon-musk-letter-1235747775/

71
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: October 08, 2023, 02:32:15 AM »
What's even the argument here, that the vaccine killed one of these boys after two years and the other after three years? And the millions of us who are still doing fine, we're just waiting until the poison eventually kicks in?

Eight year old weren't being vaccinated in 2021. Vaccination of children is a more recent phenomenon.

Children have been safely vaccinated for many, many years, but I take it you specifically mean the covid vaccine. Okay, fair enough. In that case, what's the connection between these deaths and the pro-vaccination campaigns they appeared in? Does appearing in a pro-vaccination campaign make you more likely to die from a vaccine? For that matter, what evidence is there that their deaths are related to vaccines at all?

72
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: October 07, 2023, 07:48:51 PM »
What's even the argument here, that the vaccine killed one of these boys after two years and the other after three years? And the millions of us who are still doing fine, we're just waiting until the poison eventually kicks in?

73
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: October 02, 2023, 03:48:20 AM »
This isn't strictly speaking related to Biden, but I think the recent story about Jamaal Bowman deserves some attention, because we can learn a lot from it about false equivalencies, media negligence, and one key difference between Republicans and Democrats:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bowman-fire-alarm-congressional-vote/story?id=103629140

Conservatives have been delighted with this story, and everyone from Trump on down has been loudly crowing about how this is a huge scandal totally on par with the insurrection (while also paradoxically maintaining that the insurrection wasn't a big deal and its participants have been treated unjustly and at the same time that the insurrection was an elaborate false flag meant to make conservatives look bad). A Democratic congressman tried to sabotage the vote on a bill to end the shutdown! There are two major flaws in this narrative. One, the bill passed with the near-unanimous support of House Democrats. Why would Bowman want to sabotage voting on a bill that he and virtually his entire party supported? Two, and perhaps more importantly, this wasn't in the Capitol building. This was the Cannon House Office Building, a different building entirely. Bowman didn't disrupt the vote or even disturb his fellow legislators at all. He set off a fire alarm in a nearby building.

The article I linked mentions these facts, as most of the mainstream media did, but makes no effort to be proactive and emphasize the actual consequences, or lack thereof, of what Bowman did. Instead, the media just sat back and let the conservative propaganda machine set the narrative they must have known was coming. There was a Democrat, there was a false alarm in a building on the Capitol grounds, and there was an upcoming vote. Therefore, Democrats were trying to sabotage the vote! Anyone could have predicted this, let alone the people in the media. Why didn't they make the effort to combat this? Just add a couple of lines near the end of the article emphasizing that what Bowman did was in a different building to where the vote was being held and also that he supported it. In today's media landscape, clarifying those points is necessary context. It's not neutral or objective reporting to do nothing and let known bad actors set a false narrative. It's the opposite, in fact.

And as a final point, maybe I'm wrong and Bowman really was more than just careless here. Maybe he was trying to delay the vote rather than outright sabotage it, as some people have speculated. His actions should be investigated, and if it turns out that he did this on purpose, then he should face the consequences. And here's the great part - he will face the consequences! Because no matter what the both-sides edgelords would have you believe, there are some pretty major differences between Republicans and Democrats, and here's one of the biggest - Democrats actually answer for their misconduct. Republicans will close their ranks and faithfully defend the likes of Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Greg Gianforte, Duncan Hunter, and George Santos. From sex pests to violent criminals to genuinely crazy people who would be babbling on street corners if they weren't born into wealth and privilege, the Republican Party will protect every flavor of distasteful and outright horrible people as long as they vote the right way. But the Democratic Party generally holds its members accountable. Sometimes to a fault, like with Katie Hill. But in any case, yes, Bowman will answer for what he's done. He wouldn't if he were a Republican.

74
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 30, 2023, 10:38:37 PM »
The NYP article is deeply dishonest. The judge didn't personally "value" the estate. He went by what the tax assessor for the county had said:

https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-mar-lago-worth-donald-trump-florida-property-1830195

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mar-a-lago-1-8-billion-own-company-said-it-was-too-high/

You don't get to lowball your estate's value for taxpaying purposes and then pump it up so you can swing it around as a super-valuable asset for business purposes. My guess is that Trump has been cheating on his taxes (again) and his scheme just backfired on him.

75
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 30, 2023, 04:31:08 PM »
all of the news outlets are acknowledging that an impeachment inquiry has begun

What? You mean this guy on Twitter is lying? Surely not!

76
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 29, 2023, 03:33:05 AM »
The Tweet is claiming that the big television networks are not covering it. Your response is that you do not watch TV, but suspect that it is incorrect and immediately claimed in the same post that he is lying. How is it a blatant lie considering that you do not watch TV, exactly?

And also that CNN and MSNBC weren't covering it. By showing that CNN and MSNBC were in fact covering it, I showed that the post was lying. Your logic basically amounts to "Well, if you omit the part where they lied, then it turns out that they didn't lie." And in the interests of putting this ambiguity to rest, I looked it up and it turns out that the big three TV networks did in fact cover this, and posted their livestreams on YouTube. Here's NBC, here's ABC, and here's CBS. There we go, every part of that stupid tweet was a lie.

77
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 29, 2023, 01:47:26 AM »
The twitter comment was specifically talking about television networks

That's odd, because I would have thought that "CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 TV networks" would in fact refer to CNN, MSNBC, and the Big 3 TV networks.

Quote
That page you linked as your evidence is featured on neither the front page of https://cnn.com or https://www.cnn.com/politics. Having a page for it hardly shows that it is being treated in the same manner as the Trump Impeachment. You can go there yourself and see that it is wrong that it is being treated in the same way.

If you go to https://cnn.com and search for "impeachment" you see some non-featured links to "Fact check: Republicans make false, misleading claims at first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing" and "Republican witnesses directly undercut GOP narrative at impeachment hearing"

On television the Trump impeachment was also treated with as much importance as a major terrorist attack, that everybody just had to know about, which it is clearly not in the case of the Biden impeachment.

You're changing the subject. This tweet is claiming that CNN is blacking out coverage of the Biden impeachment inquiry, not simply that it's downplaying it or not treating it as momentous as Trump's impeachment. That's not a simple misunderstanding or a poor choice of words; that's a blatant lie.

78
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 28, 2023, 11:42:16 PM »
It would have taken you two seconds to check this with a Google search and confirm for yourself that it's absolutely untrue. CNN has a page with live updates to the story:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-impeachment-hearing-house-oversight-09-28-23/index.html

MSNBC has also plenty of articles about what's happening on their website - they're making no effort to be neutral, but they're still covering the subject. I don't usually watch the news on TV, but I think I can still say with some confidence that I'm sure they're covering it too. Don't listen to right-wing grifters. They're liars.

79
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: September 23, 2023, 04:36:57 PM »
I still don't agree with Crudblud, and I think he's being a bit pedantic in his last response to me, but I'm willing to let it lie rather than seem like I'm swooping in just to get the last word or whatever. Maybe one day I'll corner him on IRC and get a better chance to explain to him how objectively correct I am. Anyway, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up Dunkey's review of the game. He's being awfully harsh on it. It's one thing to compare it to From's other titles as a starting point, but he returns to that point again and again seemingly as evidence of how bad the game is. Most games are far easier than Soulsbornes. Most games can be played with a minimum of focus once you have enough experience with the gameplay and familiarity with the levels. That doesn't make them bad. I guarantee you that the next Mario game that Dunkey raves about will be a lot easier than AC6. Anyway, if you just don't like what you see of the gameplay, that's fine, but if you'd otherwise be interested, don't let yourself be put off simply because Dunkey said that the game wasn't very good.

Pages: < Back  1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 78  Next >