Youtube comments of Serai3 (@Serai3).
-
4200
-
3500
-
3100
-
2900
-
2700
-
2100
-
2000
-
1700
-
1600
-
1200
-
1100
-
891
-
641
-
636
-
616
-
615
-
596
-
547
-
542
-
470
-
460
-
444
-
443
-
430
-
420
-
419
-
413
-
389
-
379
-
Years ago, I saw a video of some very stoned teenagers hanging out at a zoo window to a gorilla enclosure. They were laughing and knocking on the glass at the gorilla who was a few feet away. He kept looking over and then looking away, and apparently he decided to pull a prank, because he CHARGED the glass and thumped against it. The kids shrieked and then laughed, but the great thing was what the gorilla did afterward. He ran off a ways, sat down with his back to the kids, and I swear he started laughing. His shoulders shook up and down, and he made grin/barking motions with his mouth. That was absolutely a gorilla saying to himself, "HA, I showed them! Dam stoners!" One of the funniest things I've ever seen; unfortunately, I've never been able to find the video again, though I've been trying ever since.
378
-
The age is a side issue. What I want to know is why they took away the great ironic heart of the character, namely that before the war, Serena Joy was a famous televangelist. This situation wasn't something that was cooked up for the war - Serena had spent YEARS advocating exactly this kind of thing. There's a line in the book that sums it all up perfectly, when Ofglenn is thinking about how Serena is just as imprisoned as herself, "How furious she must have been to have been taken at her word." Now that most basic bitterness - having all her fame and power stripped away by getting what she demanded, and then finding out it's hell - is gone, and that's too bad, because it was one of the best things about the book, in my opinion. (I really don't get some of the changes made, some of them make little sense, and some seem to be made solely to keep from upsetting somebody.)
377
-
373
-
358
-
355
-
344
-
328
-
321
-
318
-
301
-
295
-
281
-
273
-
253
-
252
-
250
-
248
-
244
-
242
-
240
-
238
-
223
-
221
-
207
-
206
-
As they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Back in the early 90's, I worked temp jobs at several tech companies in Scotts Valley, including Borland. Everyone I heard mention Steve Jobs' name hated, hated, HATED that jerk. NO ONE had a good word for him. He was a narcissistic, abusive jerk even back then, and he only got worse. Hardly surprising the company he ran roughshod in would take after him, as company culture spreads from the top down, so gaslighting? Absolutely typical. Not the least bit shocking, in fact, I'd have been surprised if Apple wasn't like that. That's what you get from a second-rate salesman who took his own acid trips way too seriously, who had cute ideas then bullied and browbeat everyone around him into doing all the work while he took all the credit. What's sad is that it hasn't changed at all.
201
-
198
-
197
-
190
-
183
-
177
-
177
-
173
-
171
-
170
-
168
-
168
-
164
-
158
-
153
-
152
-
147
-
146
-
143
-
141
-
139
-
137
-
132
-
132
-
124
-
123
-
121
-
There's a great video on here of a gorilla family walking through a nature resort, down the trail that people use. They walk around, the dad is looking at the road, seemingly thinking, "Eh, I could make a better road, this laid out sloppy," while the mother shepherds her kids through. They then sit down and hang out, right next to a guy with a camera who is crouching by the trail. He's ecstatic, trying not to move so they'll feel safe. The kids start climbing on him, and the mom gently pulls them away when they get too rough. "Be careful, honey, they're delicate. You don't to hurt the humans, do you?" They eventually get up and leave, it's amazing. I keep thinking they had been out in the bush and the kids started begging, "Can we go see the humans, Pop? PLEEEEEASE??" You can see the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H7zcqjplc
116
-
114
-
113
-
111
-
109
-
109
-
107
-
106
-
102
-
101
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
96
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
89
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
82
-
82
-
79
-
78
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
72
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
Not a story about leaving MAGA, but you might find it interesting nonetheless. My dad was born and raised in Spain during the Civil War there. He went through some horrifying and traumatic experiences as a kid that made him side with Franco when he first took power. (He was a kid, remember.) Because Franco subdued the country, my dad was grateful because his family really feared for their lives. I heard these stories as a kid and didn't think much of it, but as I grew older I got kind of horrified. But luckily Reagan pizzd my dad off so much he swore off the GOP and right-wing politics in general. The relevant part: this man whose family had been saved by the rise of fascism, who sang Franco's praises until his mid-forties... HATED Trump. I mean HATED him. My dad had a talent for spewing invective (being Spanish, as it's rather an art form over there), and when he got going on Twitler, he got positively baroque in his curses. He often stated his wish that he could, * ahem *, DO something about the monster himself, that's how much he HATED him. Sadly, the monster was still in power when my dad passed on - he never got to see the schitshow we're seeing now. He would have laughed all day long to see that HACK get what's coming to him.
57
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Like every other industry, there are horrible people and decent people in entertainment. I worked in production offices and I did some gigs as a background actor, and I can tell you there are plenty of decent people. (Google Robert Rodriguez's story about how he fought to shit in Weinstein's eye for what he did to Rose McGowan, for instance.) But as always, the predatory and the vicious create a climate of fear and aberration which is hard for people who aren't in that industry to grasp. It's not like working retail or a restaurant. These are dream jobs that millions of people long to have. And they are VERY difficult to get at any real level of success. Achieving status in entertainment is a big commitment, and it's very hard not to rationalize putting up with vast amounts of shit to keep that dream. I'm very glad at every person that's speaking up, but although I'm not happy at their silence, to be honest, I don't know what I would have said or done had I been in any position to feel that getting out wasn't what I wanted. I did leave because I didn't like it at all, but I was at a very low level so I wasn't really giving up that much. But being confronted with that awfulness at the level of a regular working actress with union backing and name recognition? I don't know. I'm not judging anyone, even though I would judge myself very harshly. That is one fucked-up, WEIRD industry, and it's easy to get trapped for much longer than one would hope..
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
I'm sorry if you get upset by my insistence on what King HIMSELF says is the whole point of the character, but - and I say this gently - you'd best get used to people arguing against your interpretation of something, because that's gonna happen. It's one thing to sympathize with a character, it's quite another to insist the character is not who she was written to be. King himself described Carrie as an ugly duckling who became beautiful for one night and then had her beauty destroyed by cruelty. You can interpret that to fit your life, but it's dishonest to pretend that the author did not intend what he has clearly stated was his intent. Carrie was based on girls he actually knew, both as a student and as a teacher. (He taught high school English.) He singles out one girl in particular as the inspiration for Carrie, and talked about how she was dumpy and plain and had constantly broken-out skin, dressed in a drab way to hide her body, and was not pretty. He saw her and girls like her and wondered what would happen if they suddenly had the power to punish everyone who ever called them ugly and humiliated them. That was the genesis of Carrie, and the reason for the story. Now, her story can certainly resonate with anyone who has been abused the way she was (I found that resonance, myself); there's no question about that. One doesn't have to be a teenage white girl from Maine to get what she went through. But she was written very specifically, and I think it's disrespectful to the author to say she wasn't, when the story was so personal to him.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I've made sugar plums for years. They're a lot of work, especially since the ones I make have to be wrapped individually, but they don't look anything like the ones presented here, and have no cooking involved (and no additives, either). They're made of minced dried fruit, ground almonds, honey, powdered sugar, and spices; very simple and really good. Just mix equal parts dried fruit and ground almonds, add the spices and sugar and mix well, then mix in the honey just until the mixture comes together into a stiff mass. Pinch off pieces and roll them into ovals (dust your hands with powdered sugar to keep the "dough" from sticking to your fingers), then roll in more powdered sugar and set aside. After you're done, repeat the sugar rolling a couple more times, as the honey will suck the sugar into the sweet. Once you get a fairly dry surface, wrap the pieces in waxed paper (or colored cellophane if you want to be fancy), and you have a batch of sweets that will last in the cupboard for months. Perfect for gift giving, and WAY less bother than the recipe here. (I kept a few out the first time I made them to test their longevitiy, and they were still good by the following Yule.)
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I know what you mean, Jon. It's frustrating. There are people who will take things badly no matter what is said. Or take things as being comments on whatever they're focused on whether it has anything to do with it or not. The times are tense and people are freaked out, and in times like this, there's a tendency to view everything via the lens of the tension of the times.
But you know what? What you're seeing is people involved in history - the history that's being made _now_. Look at it that way and it might not be so frustrating when it appears. Nah, it'll probably still be frustrating. But history isn't just in the past, after all. It's here in the present, and off in the future, always being made. And almost never peacefully or happily! (History only looks wonderful and attractive from the outside. From the inside, it's just like the time anyone lives in.)
Regardless, I know your pain. I ran a forum for years and the only way I was able to keep it peaceful and fun and a haven was to have the rules posted clearly and use the banhammer mercilessly. Someone has to be the gatekeeper, and if your party is turning into a brawl, you have to start throwing the rioters out, more's the pity.
I love the work you do here. I don't comment often, mainly because your explanations are so good that I don't usually have anything to ask! But your videos are one of the things that make my day, and being basically housebound, you really help me deal with my life. Thank you so much, and I'll keep watching for sure. (I've recommended your channel a number of times, just sayin'.) Fuerza!
P.S. I said this in a comment below, but I'll say it to you here - I think the problem happened because most people don't know what a fool is anymore, other than the epithet. So "orange fool" is a phrase that has no meaning to most people other than an insult. I had no idea that title was controversial because I did know what a fool was before I saw the video, so I got the title right away. (Especially because of those quote marks!) That's what happens when history and literature are not given their due in schools - people have no context in situations like this, so misunderstandings abound.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@pidza_hub7532 No, sorry. They judge them for what they're saying. All the time. They're constantly interfering, pushing, nudhjing. Making moral judgments right to their faces, which is highly unethical. Yeah, it's a TV series so it has to be dramatic, but FFS, none of that would be tolerated if they were real doctors. It's not their place to tell people how to live their lives, or even to voice an opinion about it. So no, it's not a matter of "you didn't tell me the truth, you bad boy," it's a matter of "you shouldn't be doing [fill in the blank] with your life, how can you be so [fill in the blank]." Mind your business, Mr. Stethoscope, you're here to heal; the rest is none of your business.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Elizabethan history has always been one of my favorite subjects, but you know, I still really liked this film. I totally recognized how inaccurate it was, but as a movie, and not a historical document, I think it's great. You are right about the problem of people assuming this was how things happened, but that's true of any movie based on history, and the problem is never going to go away. This one is particularly egregious, but there have been others just as bad. (Take Agora, for instance, a movie whose problems are found in equal measure in its adaptation and in the fact that the story it's adapting is itself a complete myth.) It's a problem that will exist so long as movies are being made, books are being written, and stories as being told - somebody is always going to get things wrong and insist that they're right. Humans, go figure.
Looking forward to part 2!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Here's a tale for you: Back in the 70's, pot was not against the law in California. (Yeah, we were the first, but nobody remembers that.) You could have an ounce or less on you, according to the law. If you had more, you'd get a ticket for about $100. One day, I was with a couple of friends in a record store, and one of them (unbeknownst to us) was shoplifting. She got caught, and when the police came, one of them looked in our bags. He was a young guy, and rifling (gently) through my best friend's bag, he pulled out a lid of pot. (That's an ounce bag, for you young'uns.) He looked at the bag, looked at her. She shrugged and smiled, he rolled his eyes, tossed it back in her bag, and never said a word. They had better things to do than bust stoners, and they knew it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Wonderful video, thank you so much for this! Back in the 80's, I used to work at the SoCal Renaissance Faire. I made myself a corset using sections of steel rebars and copious cotton padding. I know that sounds crazy, but my Goddess, that thing was SO comfortable! For about the first half-hour, it would feel "too tight", but after that I'd be settled in, and it helped me get through long days of being quite active without getting exhausted. I also have scoliosis, though mine is less than yours (so much so that I wasn't even aware of it as a condition until the 90's), and had suffered from mild backaches through most of my life, so the thing really helped me. I especially remember how when I took it off at the end of the day, my back would just COLLAPSE, and suddenly I would feel just how tired I was. Honestly, I'd still be using it now if someone hadn't stolen it from the backstage area on the last day of the Faire the last year I was there. Maybe the spinal gods were telling me something!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
+Dingus The generations do not get worse. That's nonsense. This is a cycle that's been going on for thousands of years (re: Aristotle). If the generations kept getting worse, the entire planet would be populated by irredeemably evil cannibals who couldn't put their shoes on. Even the idea of "generations" is a complete canard outside of the realm of family. It's a stupid marketing trick. It's not about successive "generations" being worse - it's about the universal law that teenagers are stupid, and these days, young adults are encouraged to remain teenagers as long as possible. It's not "generations" that wise people up, it's EXPERIENCE. Believe me, when the kids whining today are 40, THEIR children will act exactly the same way, and THEY will answer in exactly the same way I have, which is exactly the same way OUR elders answered when WE whined the same way. It's the same way it worked out in the 1920's, when young kids were "running wild" and elders thought the world would end because NO RESPECT DAMMIT. It's happened in the 1800's, the 1600's, the medieval era, the dark ages. Like I said, Aristotle - HE complained about the lack of respect of the young and how the world was going to hell. There isn't the slightest thing original in anything the millennials are whining about - it's a story as old as humanity. That's why it's so goddamn funny! :D:D:D
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I'm still flabbergasted by this bizarre trend of brides thinking they're owed money by the people attending, just because they're getting married. When I got married, WE paid for our maids' and groomsmen's outfits. My parents paid for the food, my dress was a gift from a friend of my mom, who was a seamstress. The photos were done by my photographer brother, a friend of my dad did a video for us. We got some really nice gifts, but none of them had a price tag of over $150. We had a backyard wedding, and TEN YEARS LATER, we were still hearing from friends how it was the best party they ever attended. Why in the world do girls think they have to have some insanely lavish shindig and THOUSANDS of dollars in gifts? (Not to mention a honeymoon paid for by their guests, WTF??) Where did this insanity come from? I can't fathom it. (And this nonsense about OMG IT'S MY DAY. Give me a break. That "my day" comes from back when the reason for it was that it was the LAST day that a girl would be a person in her own right. After that day, she belonged to her husband and her whole life would be lived as an adjunct to HIS identity. So keep your ignorant, entitled bullshit about OMG MY DAYYYYYY.)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+Travis Romig
But the point I'm making is that Adams didn't, in fact, just abandon his book to the filmmakers. He was involved in the project, and they were fans of his work. And saying it's not like the book is ridiculous, because Adams created four versions of the story before the movie, and every one of them was different too, each containing incidents that didn't happen in the other versions. So to say the latest version sucks because it's not like the one three versions back (radio series, book, TV show, game, movie) is just being intransigent. Sorry, but I'm not impressed by people who throw tantrums, especially over an issue as nonsensical as this. And especially when the movie is so good. (Jesus, purists are tiresome.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think we should start taking into account how dependably these events of splitting and destroying bonds between people come up whenever a rising trend of unrest against the wealthy and powerful begins to emerge. We should think carefully about how those of us who are NOT rich and powerful are suddenly cutting ourselves off from one another, breaking bonds that could be used at some point to make things better. I don't object or disagree with anything being said about unsafe people, or think that anybody shouldn't do what they feel needful - hell, I feel lucky not to have anyone in my life that I'd have to say "f*** off" to, because I absolutely would. But we ought to pay attention to how, once again, those who are not rich and powerful have been influenced to create chasms that those who ARE rich and poweful can easily exploit. (American racism is the premiere example of this phenomenon, as the schism between "white" and black people benefits no one except the rich and powerful.) Think of how these schisms will affect, say, workers who otherwise might unite against unfair labor practices, or women who might unite to change school policies, or patients who might unite to agitate against unsafe medical practices. Everyone has the right to draw boundaries, but I think it would behoove us to consider how others might use those reasonable boundaries to unreasonable ends. Because they will, believe me. Those with power ALWAYS use the agitation among the powerless to gain more power and cut off the means to share in it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+T REX Ah yes, now comes moving the goalposts. Sure, you weren't talking about the actual war on drugs. Sure. Whatever. And by the way, REAGAN WAS NOT A FUCKING BOOMER, YOU IDIOT. He was in his SEVENTIES when he did that, which means he was at least TWO generations behind the Boomers. See? THIS IS WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO SENSE OF HISTORY. You're kids, so you think like kids - everything is about you, nothing is your fault, not even the things you do, and everything evil in the world came from your parents and grandparents because WAAAAHHHHH THEY WON'T GIVE YOU ALL THE TOYS. Christ, you sound like a fucking teenager whining about how you have to drive around in your dad's shitty Olds and why can't he get a COOL car? Fucking grow up and learn something already.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Llynnyia No, it's not a sin. The word translated by James I's translators as "abomination" is more accurately translated as "cultural anathema" - in other words, "things we Hebrews don't do". They are not forbidden by Yahweh, but prohibited by the priesthood because of their foreign associations. Thus, eating pork but also cutting your hair and/or beard, eating seafood, wearing blended fabrics, planting different crops side by side (how you're supposed to manage that and still have a farm is never explained), go to the theater, be naked in public, etc., etc., etc. None of these are sins, they're just cultural prohibitions. Difference.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
How about a video about "O", the teen adaptation of Othello, starring Mekhi Phifer, Julia Stiles, and Josh Hartnett? That really is an astoundingly good adaptation. They not only found a way to place it in the modern world, but the script makes many interesting associations and parallels with the play's culture and ours. The transformation of Iago (a murderously jealous husband) into Hugo (a lonely, jealous kid), and the textual punning on our media-saturated culture and tendency to glamorize violence are all expertly pulled off. Othello's majestic honor and rage transform into the prickly defensive shield of Odin, a young athlete just stepping into a possible future of fame, and his fury when all his good behavior comes to nothing. It's a little-remembered masterpiece, and it would make a great subject for analysis as to the changes in race relations since Shakespeare's time.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
LOL, no, child. This is not Orwellian. That would be you not being allowed to choose ANYTHING about your life, including where you work, who you talk to, and who you marry, if you're allowed to marry at all. It would be never being able to say a single word that isn't approved, and being kidnapped and tortured into blind obedience if you try. THIS is crappy and invasive, but it's a long way from being Orwellian, mainly because you can CHOOSE not to get into the car. In Oceania, there is no choice about anything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
And yet the New Testament tells slaves to be obedient and obey their masters. See, the problem is that the bible is not one book. It is a COLLECTION of books written by different people with different agendas over a period of about 1,500 years, through changing times and political climates. It contains histories, biographies, books of law, polemics, diatribes, poetry, management memos. It even contains a book of soft-core P-RN, for gods' sakes. There's no way you're going to get a consistent message on ANYTHING out of something like that, which is why the whole idea that it's "literally true" is nonsense. It would be like saying a medieval tome on leechcraft is as valid as a medical textbook from 1996. It's can't ever work.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I define religion as "any system of ideas, beliefs, rituals, rules, and commands that seek to explain the existence and state of the world as the worshipper knows it and guide them through living in it". But you're right - "religion" is a slippery category, and a relatively recent one. Back in, say, Jesus's time, there was no separation between what we would call "religion", "philosophy", "law", "science", and other such matters. They were all part of explaining and maintaining a community's way of life. It's only since the "Enlightenment" that we've come to think of "religion" as a separate category.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I've always been intrigued by that moment when the Fed Ex guy walks into Neo's cubicle. Have you noticed that there is NOTHING on his desk? Not a thing. No pictures on his walls, no papers in his in or out boxes. Nothing. He is sitting there with his hands flat on his desk (who sits like that?) staring at a blank screen, giving the impression that he's been frozen like that for a while, and only snaps out of it when the deliveryman shows up. What I would like to know is what's happening in that moment? Was he really there? His world is fake, but he doesn't know it. He's only ever known what the system tells him. So does he actually have a job? Or just the illusion of one? Is he actually experiencing entire days and nights? Or is his existence truncated, with only pieces of it being lived? After all, the system is all about expenditure of energy vs. production of energy. Perhaps an entire lived life is too inefficient, a waste of energy, so the pod people only live in flashes, fake sensations, moments.
"A prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch." What's missing in that statement? VISION and HEARING. Those he has, but not any of the other senses. What does that remind you of? A movie. Movies are only sight and sound - no other sense are engaged. Neo's life is being compared to a movie, which of course is what it is - a movie we, the audience, are watching. But movies are constructed of bits of film put together in such a way that you think you're seeing a continuous stream of motion, but you aren't. You only get pieces of the puzzle, and only the pieces the filmmakers want you to see. So too Neo's life - he thinks it's an entire life, but is it? Perhaps it's only the bits the system lets him see and hear. Did he have a childhood? A family? Or just implanted memories? Or not even that? How does his mind exist in his world, as an anchored part of it, or as a floating, untethered self never really making any connection to those around him, those others also floating in an undefined existence, never wholly conscious, never really alive?
All of this makes that line "really good noodles" odd and ironic, because how would he know they're good? He can't taste or smell them, so he can only assume they're good. And did he ever have the experience of eating them, or does he just think he remembers eating them? What has he really "lived" and what does he only think he's lived? Of course he hasn't lived any of it, really, so it could just as easily be a fragmented series of impressions in the shape of a life, that he assumes is a life because he's never known anything else, and would have no reason to think is lacking in any way. Except, of course, for that weird nagging sensation that something is wrong. I contend that the nagging sensation is not some unformed suspicion, but his unconscious awareness of all those chunks of missing time and experience, not having an entire life, not sensing with his full senses, not using his real body, not actually being human.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Just goes to show that laws are just words on a piece of paper unless everyone agrees to abide by them. We were too stupid, self-satisfied, and complacent to even CARE to notice how the rules were being changed, little by little, right under our noses. And here we are - the feds have the right to act like the Gestapo, we can't fight them other than in the courts which have now been packed with wingnut enablers, and we're staring a violent, racist, misogynist, xenophobic dictatorship in the face with little to protect ourselves, because we didn't believe our attention was necessary to keep our democracy alive.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@abe365 Then your logic must tell you no one is ever happy, anywhere, ever, since we are all forced to inhibit some emotion in order to live with others. In that case, the whole idea becomes worthless, since a state of "happiness" that no one can ever reach is irrelevant.
.
Also, I am now a little insulted that you assume no one can love animals or be ethical if they do not share your precise view on how to achieve a good life. No, I am not a vegan - and yet, SURPRISE!! I love animals and consider myself very ethical. Please look into the sources and supply chain of every item you have in your house before you start making little judgments about others' ethics. You'll be shocked at how much poverty, racism, violation, and even murder you are supporting with the things you buy. (And yes, that includes animals.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Marrick Denille
Yes, it got made into a film about ten years ago. Douglas Adams worked on it before he died, and there are a bunch of things in it that came directly from him, including the John Malkovich character. It's quite good, Martin Freeman and Sam Rockwell are perfect. Rockwell especially gets Zaphod's King Turd of Shit Mountain vibe on cue - he reminds me strongly of Tom Cruise (which I'm sure was not accidental). Martin Freeman is a worthy successor to Simon Jones, getting the same bewildered vibe. Alan Rickman did a beautiful Marvin (as did Warwick Davis). Gods, Rickman's so good at utter, acidic, withering disdain. It really is good, you should check it out.
As to what's funniest, man, that'll depend on you. I loved Bill Nighy's performance as Slartibartfast, and his little scene with Arthur was wonderful. (That guy can do more with a pause and a stammer than most comedians can do with their whole body.) And I laughed a lot at the scenes with Ford Prefect. That character went through a transformation because of the actor they chose, but I really like where he went with it. He was played American, which among other things made him fit better with Zaphod, who's played as the Uber-Yank.
If you set your expectations aside and just enjoy it, you'll find it's a great adaptation. Just remember Adams's involvement. The changes were all fine with him.
Oh, and the surface of the planet that tortures anyone who lands there. THAT was funny.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tolohtony Funny, that happens to me quite a lot when I'm speaking English. I often realize I can't say what I'm trying to say because although it can be said in Spanish, there's no way to say it in English. I used to work doing written translations, and I can't count the number of times I was frustrated beyond belief because for some damn reason, English just DIDN'T HAVE THE WORDS. For a language that has more words than any other, it really is shocking just how much is not expressable in it. There are areas of thought, attitudes about life, that English simply isn't interested in, and thus the gaps. But unless you actually speak another language, you won't know what the gaps are, because the ideas aren't there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Idea for a scene from The West Wing:
Josh and Sam walk into the Oval Office. Bartlet looks up from his papers and asks, "Why the long faces?"
Josh and Sam glance at each other. "You want to tell him?" Josh asks.
"I think you should tell him," Sam replies.
Josh clears his throat. "Sir, it looks like Denmark says Greenland isn't for sale."
Bartlet, visibly startled, says, "Well, I should hope not." Josh and Sam look at each other, then look away. "Are you telling me we were thinking of buying Greenland?" Bartlet asks incredulously.
Sam murmurs, "I told you it wasn't a good idea." Josh talks over him, "Sir, we thought it might be worth looking into, what with all their... mineral resources... and..." He stops, frozen by Bartlet's stare.
Leo comes in and asks what's going on.
Bartlet replies, "It looks like Greenland isn't for sale."
Leo glares at the two abashed staffers and says vehemently, "Well, I should hope not!"
Thus ensues a three-minute lecture from Bartlet (aided by a pissed-off Leo) about North European economics as they relate to dumbass ideas like that, interrupted only when Abbie comes in and tells Jed to leave the boys alone and let them get back to recess.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Ransom? Hang on a second." Goes to other phone, calls daughter. "You okay, honey?" "Yeah, sure, mom. Why, whats wrong?" "Oh, nothing. Just wanted to hear your voice. Love you!" "Love you too, Mom." Goes back to original call. "Yeah, you can fuck off, scammer. Nice try, though."
I don't see what's so hard about that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
LOL, Wendy Beckett figured it out. She said the reason for La Gioconda's smile becomes obvious when you look at any picture of Da Vinci at the time he painted it - he was GORGEOUS. A real hottie at that age. So there's no mystery at all to that smile. I mean, who wouldn't smile when spending hours looking at a beautiful man who's creating one's likeness? :D
P.S. No, Leonardo would not have thought of this as a "masterpiece", because at that time the term was used to describe the piece of art one created in order to prove they had passed thorough their apprenticeship and thus could now be called a "master". Thus the term, which much later became a catchall word for anything an artist makes that's really, really good. But that is not what it meant when Da Vinci was around.
P.P.S. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say the smile disappears. I've never seen it do that. Hell, I was looking right at her when you said it and then looked at her smile like you said, and the smile is right there exactly where it always is. I get so irritated with art critics who insist THEIR own interpretations and experiences MUST be universal. (It's why that constant "we" mostly makes me think, "Who's 'we', white man?"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've always admired The Shining, but on the question of adaptation, I agree completely with the critics - it's a fantastic film, but a very, very bad adaptation. Really, Kubrick should have just changed the title and the character names, and nobody would have cared. And the characters were the central issue for me personally (rather than the particulars of the plot, which are another problem), because that's where King's books have always shone the most - in the way he handles characters, emotions, and interior monologues. But other than Danny and Halloran, nobody in the film is the person they are in the book. Ullman is an oily, hateful little prick, but in the movie he's sympathetic if a bit stuffy. Wendy in the book is a strong, complex woman with a long history that meshed in an unfortunate way with Jack's terrible past, which was also jettisoned to make way for Kubrick's ponderously long shots and silences. (All the characters' complexities went by the wayside - Danny's history with his psi talent, Jack's career as a teacher and its violent end, Wendy's narrowly discarded determination to divorce Jack, etc. Kubrick always tended to favor characters that were flat and one-dimensional - Danny is Psychic, Jack is Alcoholic, Wendy is Weak - the director is king, after all.) The worst aspect of this had to be the casting of Jack Nicholson in the already ridiculously simplified role of Jack Torrance, a casting which removed any doubt or mystery or even surprise as to what happens. Clearly he was going to start getting crazy and loud and violent, because that's what Jack Nicholson does. You don't hire Sly Stallone to do song and dance, and you don't hire Jack Nicholson to do quietly, sadly deteriorating. You'd never guess the guy in the book was a violent alcoholic. In the movie, it doesn't surprise you for a second.
Like I said, on its own, The Shining is a great film. As an adaptation? If I were King, I'd have sued. Kubrick butchered his book.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terminator 2. By my count, there were 5 deaths, all of them at the hands of the T-1000: the cop who comes across him when he first appears, the maintenance worker in the Galleria back corridor, both of John Connor's foster parents, and the guard at the Pescadero insane asylum. (Or 6, if you count the guy who jumped out of the helicopter, but we never actually see if he died or not.) The 800 model, of course, did not kill anyone, having been ordered by John to refrain from killing people. 5 deaths is a pretty low body count for an Ah-nult action film. (If I'm forgetting anyone, please reply with who, 'cause I'd like to know if my count is off, as I'm counting from memory.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm a pagan, so this film was especially painful for me, as it uses a lot of our stories. The first time I saw it, that moment when Cruise first appears was breathtaking. He drops down onto the ground, startling Lilly, and begins to scrabble like an animal in the leaves, looking at her sidelong with this fierce savage look. He LOOKED like Jack in the Green! I held my breath, thinking OMG DID THEY GET IT RIGHT??? Then, of course, he opened his mouth, and my heart just fell. * SIGH *
(In my defense, it was only his third film, so we didn't really know yet what kind of actor he'd turn out to be. Kudos to Cruise for later admitting that he wasn't right for the part, that it was a mistake to take the role, and that he fears he may have spoiled the film thereby.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So now it's because people don't care? Gee, you seem to change your tune a lot. And your little suggestion is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. The push is MASSIVE, across media, government, and society. Don't pretend this is a few people saying it. Where do you see anyone in the media, or government, saying that history is a subject students should major in? Nowhere. Yet it's one of the MOST important subjects that can be studied. The issue here is that STEM is your personal thing, you think it's the most important thing ever, so YOU don't think other subjects are important. Fine, but half the reason we have a population that's so easily duped is the very absence of concentration in areas that would prevent that. But hey, keep pushing kids to make shiny toys that will distract everyone while the world goes to hell. Let's not pay attention to anything that would teach kids how to BE HUMAN BEINGS. Who gives a crap about that, right? * EYEROLL *
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And yet a great contingent of online denizens tend to hang out exclusively with people who agree with them, for the very reasons you stated, and thus they do, in fact, become more polarized. Why would you think that being online would magically change people's behavior or proclivities? We evolved, as you say, to be comfortable with those who agree with us, so why in the world would most people run around seeking out people who don't agree with them? Answer: they don't. They do just the same thing they do in life - seek out like-minded company. So we're back to the internet making people polarized simply because that's how people tend to end up. NOT being polarized takes a great deal of effort that most people just can't be bothered with, given that whole "too busy with survival" thing. (In fact, I'd say it's harder to avoid other opinons in real life, where there's no choice about running into different people because unless you never leave your house, different people are everywhere. Online, you can easily avoid anyone who isn't an echo.) (And where did the idea that having a family means you never hear an opposing opinion come from? That's really rich, lol.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jebus Hypocristos No, that is not the point at all, since the climate is not being destroyed by rich people. The earth is being gutted BY ALL OF US. Yes, you too. Your car, your house, your job, your food, everything about you is contributing to the death of the planet. So blaming it on rich people is not only incorrect, it's self-serving and dishonest to boot. Stop pretending you're not part of the problem, Sparky, because if EVERYONE stopped doing that, we MIGHT be able to change things and save the planet.
.
Probably not, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+J .S Don't ask me. Ask the writers. One impression I got from the Matrix was that it was very surface-oriented. I don't know how much they thought about these underlying questions. In fact, questions is what the first film is all about, not answers. Have you noticed that Neo speaks almost exclusively in questions? I went to see this movie I don't know how many times when it came out. At one showing, I got curious about that, so I took out my little notepad before it started, and ticked off every line he spoke in two columns - statements and questions. In the entire first movie, Neo only makes FOUR statements. Everything else he says is a question. What's up with that? Is Neo a naturally curious person? Hell no, we see he's a hunkered-down, defensive guy that doesn't give anything away. Is that part of his personality, or a reaction to not being able to form a complete one? Is he simply incapable of coming up with answers to anything? Possibly, maybe - perhaps the system deliberately keeps people from being able to answer these kinds of questions in order to keep control. (Thus the nagging sensation that can't be defined. Christ, being in the Matrix must be like being on some bizarre hallucinogen 24/7 for your whole life.) This movie is a rabbit hole that never ends, and I don't know if that's because they didn't WANT the questions to end, or because they just never thought much about them. And no, I have no idea if the other two films answer any of this shit, because I invariably fall asleep if I try to watch them - they're that bloated and self-indulgent and flat out BORING. Only playing the Rifftrax alongside them makes them bearable to me. Honestly, I think the moral of the whole Matrix saga is "Some questions should never be answered", LOL
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gee, what might accomplish that without having to buy another sovereign nation's land? Hm, let me think. Maybe some kind of treaty, you know, where all the nations who oppose Russia's lust for dominance get together and commit to helping each other fight back. Hm, what would we call such a thing? An organization, maybe? They'd be based around the Atlantic, so that'd have to be in the name... Man, this is a poser, but I'm sure if we think REALLY FUCKING HARD, we can come up with the OBVIOUS FUCKING ANSWER that if Twitler had respected THE FUCKING TREATY THAT'S ALREADY THERE, nobody would have to be thinking about this shit because Russia WOULDN'T HAVE THE FUCKING POWER to do the heinous crap it's only getting away with because of the FUCKING INSANE PUPPET PUTIN MANAGED TO GET INTO THE WHITE HOUSE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Idea for a scene from The West Wing:
.
Josh and Sam walk into the Oval Office. Bartlet looks up from his papers and asks, "Why the long faces?" Josh and Sam glance at each other.
.
"You want to tell him?" Josh asks.
.
"I think you should tell him," Sam replies.
.
Josh clears his throat. "Sir, it looks like Denmark says Greenland isn't for sale."
.
Bartlet, visibly startled, says, "Well, I should hope not." Josh and Sam look at each other, then look away. "Are you telling me we were thinking of buying Greenland?" Bartlet asks incredulously.
.
Sam murmurs, "I told you it wasn't a good idea." Josh talks over him, "Sir, we thought it might be worth looking into, what with all their... mineral resources... and..." He stops, frozen by Bartlet's stare.
.
Leo comes in and asks what's going on.
.
Bartlet replies, "It looks like Greenland isn't for sale."
.
Leo glares at the two abashed staffers and says vehemently, "Well, I should hope not!"
.
Thus ensues a three-minute lecture from Bartlet (aided by a pissed-off Leo) about North European economics as they relate to dumbass ideas like that, interrupted only when Abbie comes in and tells Jed to leave the boys alone and let them get back to recess.
.
.
.
(No, it's my scene, you can't have it.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jonathan Doe Funny, I don't remember saying it wasn't chaos. I know that perfectly well, But you're making assumptions about what other beings experience based solely on the fact that you can't talk to them, and they're not particularly interested in talking to you. You might as well say that deaf and dumb people aren't humans because the same applies. (Which is what used to be the prevailing belief, by the way.) We're learning more about animals every day, and a great deal of it has to do with their having a far more complex inner life than we, in our self-serving way, have ever given them credit for. It's been very convenient to think that animals aren't self-aware, because then we can exploit them however we like. But there's no proof of that; there's only conjecture and consensus based on what we want. Sorry, but that's the truth - humans tend to order the universe according to the whims and convenience of humans. It's been ever thus, but that's starting to change, and about time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lethgar_Smith If we were taxing the wealthy the way we did in the '50's, there'd be no problem. Back then, the richest paid up to 91% income tax. Back then, "wealthy" meant you owned a big mansion, a fleet of cars, a summer house, a plane or two, and all the fancy bling you cared to buy. None of this owning the entire fucking world - you just plain weren't ALLOWED to accumulate that much wealth because it was still understood how completely lousy that would be for the country as a whole. That's what we should go back to: yes, you can get rich, but you're only allowed to BE rich up to a certain point. After that, you have to give back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Britditz "Typing like I'm 16"? How does that work, exactly? Do 16-year-olds have some unique way of handling a keyboard that I haven't heard of? Ah, and now it's all the fault of COLLEGE PROFESSORS. Hey, nice goalpost-moving there, sweetheart. What'll it be next comment, the fault of the plumbers? Oh wait, I know - it's all the fault of the school lunch ladies! Yeah! They didn't give you enough mac and cheese, so now the whole world is burning! Oh, and thanks for outing yourself as a wingnut troll there, honey. Shit, what am I saying? You're a Russian troll-farm employee, obviously. Bored now, bye. * BLOCKS YOU *
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Oxy Moron Actually, not quite. There was a research program started in the 1970's (yes, the era of Jimmy Carter) into the possible medicinal effects of pot. It was discovered that it was good for glaucoma, the first medicinal use that was scientifically proven. So a program to give it to glaucoma patients was initiated, but it only ever had a handful of patients. (I remember reading an article in People about the first guy to get the pot. It came from a government-run farm in Mississippi, and he claimed it had a "medicinal taste.") The program was ended in the early 90's. By that time, about half the recipients had died, so I guess they decided it wasn't worth continuing the program. But the story that it was handed out for free is, in fact, true, if extremely small-scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A lot of the reason for that separation, at least in terms of media, is the rise of cable and now the internet, which have cracked and separated the media people take in. Back in the 60's and 70's, there were only THREE national television channels, and each area would have maybe five local channels. That was all there was, so everyone watched pretty much the same programs, saw the same news reports, etc. The news programs themselves were produced because when we only had the airwaves, the government REQUIRED that television networks produce a certain amount of content per day (the news programs) that were NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE MONEY. They were solely produced for the public benefit, and ratings had nothing to do with it. With the rise of cable, that ended, and "the news" became just another money maker, and thus less and less trustworthy as time went on, until now we have a whole network devoted to nothing but propaganda, something that would have unthinkable for most of the 20th century, when such programming was relegated to the backwaters of local radio. There was no universal electronic communication forum, and certainly no means by which anyone, no matter how ignorant or deluded or dangerous, could easily disseminate their views - if you wanted information outside of the news, you had to go to a physical location like a library, and disseminating information meant expensive and time-consuming and most of all, LIMITED means like the post office. Now people can take in media streams that are wholly separate, and so you have a populace whose segments literally believe the world is completely different from what the "other guys" think it is. I honestly don't see any way out of this for America other than the complete crash of our entire media universe. There simply is no way to unite our country anymore. This is what moguls like Rupert Murdoch have done to our world, and we may well all end up burning in a nuclear holocaust because a tiny handful of people care more about their own power and wealth than about anyone else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1