i finished it and i agree. i liked TLOU (show and lesser extent game), but Fallout had enough of the game’s…surreal?…humour that it bumped it from an “oh god this is a slog through human misery” (not in a bad way, per se!) to “miserable, but with bits of unexpected hilarity” for me.
both great shows - hope we get more like them!
it’s cinema sins but with the “he’s an astrophysicist so he must know what he’s talking about”
when an otherwise smart guy spends his time nitpicking…movies?…he comes across as the friend you wouldn’t want to go to the movies with, no?
you can argue that the hate might be “over the top” (and i tend to agree), but that mfer comes across as straight insufferable - in that if i had a choice i wouldn’t want to be around him - so i can empathise.
edit: i’m sure there’s more, but i’m struggling to come up with any other scientist who spends their time saying “haha that ben affleck movie about oil drillers isn’t scientifically accurate!?!?” instead of, you know, positively impacting/selling their field of study.
maybe a middle ground -
he (ie trump) and his team have done the slow walk and delay for everything we’ve seen publicly regarding legal matters. everything takes so much longer than it needs to (and then it’s a problem), so perhaps years of empirical evidence leads to an educated guess.
it’s true.
i don’t have cancer, so maybe those who do should stop complaining.
i had forgotten all about Alloy and…was it Lara Croft?…and people “correcting” their appearances, good point!
i’m pretty sure the subtext of “woke” is “there are women and non-white people here”
same with “dei,” i suppose - all goes back to not liking women and poc 🙃
just to tack on come context from wikipedia -
““Cowboy” was first used in print in 1725, and was used in the British Isles from 1820 to 1850 to describe young boys who tended the family or community cows.”
not to say it might have taken on some racial connotations later (or, in fact, if we believe swift’s words literally), but i’m not sure it’s 100%.
my read was that by putting “banning” in quotes, there was a subtext to the comment.
no one is “banning” words - the milieu is that we don’t use certain words for certain (in this case obvious and terrible) reasons.
by pushing the focus to the “banning” and not the obvious dog whistle, this comment seems to be shifting the convo away from people being racist shits to a discussion on language.
hence this entire comment chain.
i just want people to get the takeaway that jesus fuck people are racist, not “liberals can’t ban words, see?”
think you might have grabbed a slightly tilted takeaway from this…
i like how nukes and war is 5-7 and then alllllll the way down they’re like, “oh also no water damage and no normal wear and tear.”
really depends on what “dissenting views” means to you, though, doesn’t it?
i’m guessing it’s because the link was posted with no context, no opinion, no nothing.
perhaps if op explains what the link goes to and why it’s a good thing, people might click it and actually engage?
i didn’t downvote, but i do understand the sentiment!
for those who are downvoting, this is a simpsons reference about almost this exact same thing.
if you’re downvoting because it’s a simpsons reference, ouch!
i disagree - the word sliding can imply a passivity in things that current republican intent certainly counter-indicates.
i’m not generally pulled down slippery slopes against my will, original wording of the phrase aside.
and just like any other excuse, aren’t we beholden to call it out for the benefit of all?
instead, like capitalism, we seem to shrug and say “that’s just how humans are lol” while we go back to killing each other over money or made up stories from 2000 years ago.
just like in therapy/recovery/etc, don’t we have to acknowledge(and i mean actually reflect on) the problem (organised religion, in this case) before anything gets better?