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 ... 36  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 21, 2019, 05:44:16 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 19, 2019, 05:54:38 PM »
Bill Maher is an obnoxious boor who has never contributed anything of value to the national discourse, and politically could best be described as a centrist. I don't know why conservatives and pro-Trumpers keep invoking him as a seeming tu quoque against liberals which we must then struggle to reconcile. I'd be perfectly happy for his stupid show to be canceled and him to fuck off into obscurity.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jeffrey Epstein is Dead
« on: August 14, 2019, 02:14:50 PM »
The "malfunctioning camera" notion came from an uncorroborated tweet from a random guy on Twitter:

There's almost certainly nothing to it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jeffrey Epstein is Dead
« on: August 11, 2019, 07:35:07 PM »
I am not wrong.

I have written policy/procedure for the IDOC.

I know what policies and procedures require for people who are awaiting trial ( yet to have been formally sentenced), require. These people , if placed on suicide watch, will not be removed from suicide watch.

LD , the article offers nothing because no one will formally state he was removed.

So, no, you don't have an actual source, is what you're saying. Even in a case where virtually everyone can see that something shady is going on, you can't resist muddying the waters to puff up how knowledgeable and authoritative you supposedly are.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jeffrey Epstein is Dead
« on: August 11, 2019, 01:54:33 PM »
Rest assured what I have written is true.

Do you have a source for that or anything? I absolutely agree that Epstein should have been watched closely at all times, but I've seen nothing about it being a general rule that suicide watch is permanent, which I'd think would have come up in the articles discussing the incident.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: August 09, 2019, 09:07:54 PM »

The people at Netflix have got to be fucking high if they seriously think their shows will be a priority for D&D in the coming years. These idiots have shown that they were willing to ruin GoT in their rush to get to that sweet, sweet Star Wars fame and fortune. How could any show with an undoubtedly far lower profile hope to fare any better?

A couple more points about GoT - Euron was easily the single worst character over the course of the show. He had almost nothing in common with the Euron from the books, he looked ridiculous, every line of dialogue out of his mouth was hammy and poorly-written, virtually all of his victories were due to lazy, convenient writing and plot armor, and possibly worst of all, his entire ambition was to marry his way into power through Cersei. It's not like there was even any indication he planned to eventually kill her or anything. He was content to be number two. Who does that? Who deliberately aims for second place? It's like they were trying to make him less threatening by giving him such a relatively modest ambition.

Also, Cleganebowl was stupid. It was way too heavily foreshadowed in the previous season (the Hound doing a double take when he saw Gregor and then staring at him in silent horror would have been far more effective as a setup), and they had no real reason to fight. Gregor was a mindless zombie at that point, and the Hound had long made his peace with his desire for revenge. His characterization had moved beyond that, and he was now into caring for others and trying to contribute positively for society. It might have worked if he had still been with Arya at the time, and his fighting Gregor was to buy her time to escape. But no, the show had to go out of its way to not let that be the case by having him dismiss her previously. As the scene stands, it's just naked fanservice, something that they had to cram into the show because fans (of the books specifically, not necessarily the show) were loudly demanding it, at the expense of both character and story.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: July 28, 2019, 03:31:38 AM »
I finally did it. I finally watched the last few episodes of GoT, having previously ragequit halfway through the fourth episode after its "lol surprise dragon stealth-sniping" twist. The fans have gotten awfully toxic about this over the past few months, which is not something I condone or want to be affiliated with in any way, but there's no denying that this season was shit. "The Bells" in particular dethroned "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken" as the worst episode of the show overall, and Dany's nonsensical descent into insanity is pretty much the main reason why. It had to be the insanity, didn't it? They couldn't have let her keep her agency, let her deliberately choose to start slaughtering innocents as part of her moral absolutism and firm belief in her own destiny; instead, the bells are apparently the trigger for her hereditary insanity, because bitches be crazy. Fuck all those seasons of character development, right?

I feel bad for the cast, who gave it their all down to the last stupid line, and I feel bad for us, the consumers. This is the only conclusion to the story we'll have. Martin is not going to finish the book series, and he's been very clear that he has no intention of letting anyone else touch his materials after he's gone. It's very likely that we'll never even get to see The Winds of Winter, because the current status of the story in the books is a convoluted mess that keeps getting more and more complicated despite the fact that things should be winding down now.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 22, 2019, 01:56:11 AM »
Why? There's an actual thing he's done wrong - he made ridiculous comments about women, which are largely indefensible. He apologised for those.

There is also an unsubstantiated theory (beyond "wow if we interpret his words to mean something he didn't explicitly say but maybe perhaps implied then he arguably claimed to have done so and that's, uh, proof and stuff!!!") that he actually assaulted someone. Rightly, this went entirely unacknowledged by most of the world, including Trump.

Trump was heavily criticized for seemingly admitting to sexual assault, not simply for being lewd and disrespectful about women. The whole reason he held a press conference a couple of days later with the women who have made allegations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton was because he recognized that he was being accused of sexual assault and wanted to make a tu quoque against the Clintons. And if you don't want to take my word for it, I have a clip of Trump being confronted with the allegation of him seemingly admitting to sexual assault:

Trump denied that he had admitted to sexual assault - but only because he insisted that the whole conversation was "locker room talk" and therefore not worth taking seriously, which is not your argument about why he didn't really admit to sexual assault.

See, this is what makes the conspiratorial Dems so funny - there's an actual issue here that nobody could argue against, and a shitty non-apology doesn't change anything. If you simply left it at that, you'd be making some progress. But instead you guys are pushing a more extreme narrative for... reasons. Actually, what are your reasons? Agree with me or not, you already know that this narrative is not helping you in any way. Wouldn't it make more sense to be pragmatic about it?

Even if you're well and truly convinced that we should accuse people of crimes based on the fact that they hypothesised about them (I spent enough time calling you stupid for it, so I'll gloss over it this time), surely you must see that this is largely viewed as ridiculous, and is only bolstering the support for the guy whose support you're hoping to erode.

That's a weird thing to say. My posts here are reflective of my own beliefs, not a part of some broader political strategy on behalf of the Democratic Party, and I'm not going to water them down them in pursuit of some fallacious appeal to balance. I mean, I could say much the same thing to you. Gee, Pete, you should really just concede that Trump claimed to grope women without their consent, but didn't really mean it because it was just empty bragging. For you to insist that he didn't actually claim to grope women, even as a boast, is just too extreme and unbelievable. It makes you look like you're just desperate to never concede an inch on Trump's infallibility, and you're only going to drive more people away from him.

See? That doesn't make sense, because like me, your aim in your posts is to express your views, not form a political strategy that you'll then present to the country. You're not going to dilute your own positions just because that might be more "pragmatic" on the national stage. We may not agree on much, but surely we can at least grant each other our sincerity.

Technology & Information / Re: Need a pron machine
« on: July 21, 2019, 12:35:21 PM »
I got the video of Thork, and I did watch it to the end. It was very entertaining.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 19, 2019, 02:31:13 AM »
Actually, I have heard said tape recording of Trump admitting to grabbing a woman by the "pussy". I know we have our disagreements, but I'm sure even you can admin that grabbing a woman by their genitals is sexual assault.

Edit: After reading the exact quote that AATW posted below, I will correct myself.... Trump technically didn't admit to grabbing women by their genitals. He DID admit to kissing them (which is still sexual assault), and he insinuates that grabbing their genitals is 'OK'. He also implies that he has done this himself.

The argument that the "grab them by the pussy" argument isn't really incriminating if you pay attention to Trump's precise choice of words or whatever is ridiculous and not reflective of how pretty much anyone in the world speaks. As if Trump, in the middle of bragging about what a stud he is and how he starts kissing women automatically without even waiting, would suddenly just change the subject completely without so much as a "by the way" and make a hypothetical comment about how he could grab women by the pussy if he were so inclined, but totally doesn't and never has. Of course that's not what happened. And if this defense had any truth to it, or even just plausibility, of course Trump and/or his team would have made the argument rather than have him do what he truly hates and apologize for the comments.

Responding to a couple of points in a general sense rather than specifically quoting anyone - Ilhan Omar did not marry her brother, and there's no evidence to suggest that she did beyond the fact that it's not immediately falsifiable, due to not much being publicly known about the man she married - which isn't actually evidence at all. There really isn't much more to say about it than that. It's a smear concocted by anonymous dipshits on the Internet, spread by cranks in far-right media, and dutifully repeated by the president.

Trump's frequent, outrageous lies are well-documented. He lies about the weather, about voting fraud, about fake people who totally love him and everything he does, about history, about natural disasters, about what's clearly been recorded on tape or video, and so on. Yes, I've noticed that Politifact has on at least a few occasions dinged Republicans harder than Democrats for statements that are largely the same, but that legitimate flaw doesn't take away from the enormity of Trump's documented flagrant dishonesty. You can like Trump for being the "bad boy" of Washington, you can like him for his political acumen, and you can even like him for the childish, sophomoric reason of "if the establishment says he's bad then he must be good," but there's no sense in pretending that dishonesty isn't a major part of the Trump package.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 05:17:45 AM »
I was discussing with a friend earlier whether Trump is actually stupid or just pretending to be.
We were talking about Trump and Boris Johnson.
The way I see it, Boris's bumbling buffoon is a thin veneer beneath which lies a very cunning and intelligent person.
Trump is just a proper idiot. He knows how to whip up a crowd and he says things which superficially appeal to a certain demographic but I don't think it's an act.
I don't think he's shrewd, he's just a boarish oaf.

While it's far from the brilliant multi-dimensional chess his fans like to dress it up as, there is some strategy behind his shitposting. Trump has clearly noticed by now how fatigued the nation is from the constant scandals and controversies surrounding him, to the degree that behavior that would have been shocking from any previous president now has us barely raising an eyebrow. I'm convinced he also times his shitposts to drive other scandals - ones involving more serious political and legal risks to him - out of the news and public consciousness. As for the election, he's clearly hoping that racist shit like this will bring out the base and excite the racists and shitlords he owes his popularity to. He doesn't need to worry about non-fringe Republicans, because they'll hold their nose and vote for him in November, just like they did back in 2016.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 14, 2019, 07:53:34 PM »
Trump probably really does think that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib are from other countries.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: July 14, 2019, 01:04:59 AM »
Otherwise, you will end up just being another Saddam who writes paragraphs of criticisms that have no substance or original thought (not saying you do this).

You should really just accept that the PS4 Spidey was trash because it made slight deviations to the character and disregarded current political controversies to fit a more conventional game design.

Spider-Man: Far from Home (Jon Watts, 2019)

It's decent. The action scenes are a little underwhelming, especially given the involvement of a character as theatrical as Mysterio, and like Snupes pointed out, the climax being a shootout with a million drones is just about the least interesting thing they could have possibly done with the setup they had. But Spidey and his pals are all likable, Jake Gyllenhaal is great as both a kind and avuncular friend to Spidey and an image-obsessed maniac, the romance is kind of cute, and I had plenty of laughs.

The main thing that's holding the movie back is its inability to hop off Tony Stark's dick. Tony this, Tony that, Tony Tony Tony. Tony's name is mentioned more often than Peter's. Doesn't this kind of undercut the whole point of Homecoming? Peter's big arc was learning that he didn't need to be Iron Man Jr. (something he never should have had to "learn" in the first place), and now it's...learning to handle the responsibility of being Iron Man Jr. wisely? The filmmakers can't seem to move past the idea of Tony's legacy when it comes to Spidey. Is that really the most interesting thing they can come up with for him?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 01:56:23 PM »
Trump banned Epstein from his resorts all the way back in 2002 for sexually assaulting an employee.

That's an uncorroborated claim from a lawyer who mentioned it in passing and later admitted he had no solid evidence of it beyond an anonymous source's word for it. It could be true, sure, but knowing what we do about Trump's character, I highly doubt it.

Epstein has nothing on Trump and the case overall is terrible for the DNC, hence why most mainstream media are avoiding the news of his arrest like the plague.

It would have taken you only a few seconds to Google Epstein's name and discover for yourself that this was major news pretty much everywhere. You'd have had a better case if you argued that the media are unfairly focusing on his past relationship with Trump and gleefully repeating this great quote from 2002:

Quote from: Donald Trump
I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.

And yes, Bill Clinton was suspiciously close to Epstein as well. It wouldn't at all surprise me if he ended up being implicated in anything dubious, and I'd welcome him being publicly exposed and taken down if that were the case. Republicans will not take a similar position with Trump, because the current state of their party is a personality cult revolving around the man, and that's exactly why Trump will survive this episode, just like he's survived a hundred other career-ending scandals.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: July 06, 2019, 03:30:37 AM »
Outer Wilds

Yes, this is exclusive to Epic on PC for the next year or so, because life isn't fair, but the game itself is good. You play as an astronaut trapped in a time loop - every 22 minutes the sun explodes in a supernova and wipes out the solar system, with the player character waking up where the game begins with their memories intact, but nothing else. There's no quest log, no set objectives, only the ship's log where all your observations and discoveries are automatically recorded. With every 22-minute cycle, you have a chance to find out something new on your explorations, whether about the solar system at large, your present circumstances, or the obligatory mysterious precursor race that lived in the system centuries ago. Despite how bleak it all sounds, there's something very optimistic and wholesome about the game and its attitude towards exploration and scientific discovery. I will say that the game does lose some of its charm in its later stages, when you need to start hunting down specific pieces of data and struggling against the time constraints and rapidly-shifting terrains of certain planets, rather than just taking off in any random direction and seeing what you can find, but there isn't much they could have done to avoid that. I still wholeheartedly recommend this charming game.

The Sinking City

Another Epic exclusive, and a major letdown. Based on the works (but not all of them, due to legal tomfoolery) of H.P. Lovecraft, you play as a generic dark-haired white guy who's also a generic private detective investigating a strange city that's heavily flooded, overrun with monsters, and seems to be hiding more than one dark secret. I haven't played a ton of this game yet, but it doesn't take long to discover that its general format is fatally flawed. In between cases, you run from one point on the big, empty map to another, and interact with precisely nothing along the way. You can't go into most buildings. You can't talk to anyone. You can't do anything but travel from one point to another. There is some combat, and it sucks. There's no real combat system, just you producing a gun and firing from the hip at monsters that can either nimbly dodge your bullets or absorb a huge number of them before dying, and for some inexplicable reason you can carry barely any ammo, or even materials for crafting ammo. Both of which are pretty rare, or would be if not for a glitch that lets supply closets constantly replenish themselves. You get into one fight, and that's it, you're cleaned out. Time to waste a few minutes scrounging up more ammo. There isn't even any currency with which to buy more, because this setting uses a bullshit barter system in which people hand out bullets to each other. What the hell were they thinking?

The cases you have to investigate are pretty neat. It's kind of like L.A. Noire with a supernatural twist, and very refreshingly, the game does not hold your hand with quest markers or even spelling out what your next step needs to be most of the time. You're given the information you need, and you have the tools - usually just looking up a few keywords in one of the city's databases - to find what you're looking for. It's genuinely cool, and turns out to be the game's saving grace. It'll be enough to pull me through the game, but I'd caution anyone to be sure they really want this before spending money on a game that, frankly, is this shitty. Oh, and I didn't even mention the fucked-up animations, wonky physics, and hideous screen tearing. On a technical level, this game is almost (but not quite) as shoddily put together as a Bethesda title. Huge disappointment.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 02, 2019, 06:36:25 PM »
He's Rushing. Can we please get back to discussing the actual subject of this thread?

Trump is dumb, discuss.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 30, 2019, 02:02:29 AM »

The headline is an exaggeration, and of course this is far from the dumbest thing Trump has said. I just find it very amusing that Trump would think Putin was talking about liberals in California.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 24, 2019, 02:17:31 PM »
I am going to be LITERALLY SexWarrior for a moment:

This is so stupid. It's a memespiracy in action if ever there was one. Trump's term of office will expire on January 20th, 2020. If he hasn't won a second term, then he will cease to be the president. It really is as simple as that. There is no legal or procedural requirement for him to concede that he lost or voluntarily relinquish power. It happens whether he likes it or not. If Trump were to continue issuing orders to the government and/or military past that date, they would ignore him, just like they would ignore any private citizen attempting to order them around.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36  Next >