Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Asmongold Clips"
channel.
-
463
-
407
-
I remember when most of the companies sending me e-mail notifications for various reasons made sure they sent me a "Support BLM" message. It creeped me out, at first. That's when I trashed my Uber account. Not long after PayPal sent that obligatory message, PayPal denied service to "problematic people" because they weren't "on-board." That's when I closed my PayPal account.
That's what everyone should have done with their PayPal, but almost no one did. That's when I knew, for sure, that we were in a dystopian reality, and started making plans to move back to Idaho. Universal acceptance of "2 weeks to stop the spread" in March, 2020 was when the first thoughts of "I need to get out of here. These people are effin' crazy" came. George Floyd was in May.
I was "fortunate" enough to have some serious injuries around that time, and started working from home on a temporary basis. Now I'm working from home on a permanent basis. How lucky it was to have crippling injuries! sigh
Now, when we see "Your company's racial diversity is lacking," we're starting to question the people making such claims, rather than the companies being (essentially) extorted by activists.
It sounds like Valve just plowed through the BS ans has come out the other side of it as one of the strongest companies going, and they should (and probably will) just shrug off the racists trying to attack them.
97
-
10
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She would be right, if Tik-Tok weren't doing the Chinese Communist Party's bidding. Look who gets censored and who doesn't get censored. China doesn't allow any of that nonsense with its own people. It's mining our data and pushing ideologies it knows are corrosive to the fabric of our free society.
If it were truly a PLATFORM, rather than a PUBLISHER, you wouldn't get banned for questioning, for example, transgender ideology.
I don't think they should set a precedent of banning Tik-Tok; however, I think that ALL platforms should behave as neutral platforms, only interfering with free expression when there's a clear violation of the law. Misinformation/disinformation are not under a platform's purview to judge. Hate speech is subjective, and therefore can't be policed by a platform.
We already have laws against slander (spoken), libel (written) lies that destroy a person's reputation. This is what defamation lawsuits are for. We already have laws against inciting violence, and by that I don't mean the BS "words are violence" thing, but actual threats of violence and urging others to commit acts of violence.
When it comes to misinformation and disinformation, the best bulwark against such speech is free speech! We all know how misinformation and disinformation from supposed "authorities" have harmed us. The only reason they caused as much harm as they did was because the authorities doing the lying also managed to silence anyone who spoke against them.
1
-
1
-
Screenwriters have done hatchet jobs on original IPs since movies began. You can't do justice to a nuanced, 1000-page novel with a 2-hour movie. In film school, they are all taught to try to make the absolute best 1.5 to 2 hour movie, based LOOSELY on the original work.
Anyone who has ever read the original book and then watched the movie knows that this is the custom. It always sucks to watch the movie if you've already read the book, with very few exceptions.
In the current era, we can do longer formats and run mini-series or short series that do the original material justice. This was achieved by the adaptation of Clavell's SHOGUN (the 1st one, not the 2nd) and King's THE STAND, both of which were made-for-tv miniseries that were enormously successful. Peter Jackson did it with a trilogy of 3-hour movies. I think it could've been done even better with a mini-series of 10 to 15 hours, without any lagging or filler.
So in a way, the ACTUAL modern audience is shitting on the way things have always been done, and the way all the would-be writers, producers, and directors are trained and rewarded.
I think some of this was inevitable, with the march of technology and people seeing things done right, with a few or several series on Netflix and Amazon. Once you've binge-watched Peaky Blinders or Breaking Bad, you're kind of spoiled for the 2-hour theater experience, especially if you have a decent home entertainment system. A LOT of people got much better home entertainment systems during COVID. The rest of us took to the outdoors and turned all that shit off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. Constitution actually reflects this sentiment. It's EASY to get a majority to go for really stupid things, but there's always about 1/3 of the people who won't go for extremely stupid stuff. So what did the Founding Fathers do?
They built the best founding document they could, on which 2/3 of everybody could agree. They enshrined that 2/3 majority in our founding document, with a rule that said "You need 2/3 majority to change anything. Anything the federal government wasn't told it MAY do, it may NOT do."
That worked amazingly well for an amazingly long time, but the rot of corruption set in. Using bare majorities and a politicized Supreme Court, they opened up the floodgates for the federal government to basically do anything, intervene in anything, and do as it pleased, which is unconstitutional as hell. Some think Lincoln was the beginning of the end, suspending habeus corpus by edict, the better to fight a war against half of the nation.
And because slavery is a bad thing, he gets nothing but praise. But during and after his presidency, the power of the federal government grew by leaps and bounds. The rest is a sad story of the slow, inexorable de-construction of life, liberty, and property.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1