JAMES GUNN FIRED FROM MCU

[BurningBeard]

 

3 minutes ago, evilwaldo said:

20 years ago Blade was released and it never had the sort of backlash we see today.

Because it was pre social media and there was no perceived agenda behind it for people to go apeshit about

[OSJ]

Why would people get upset about a vampire that kills other vampires? Am I missing something?

[evilwaldo]

Just now, OSJ said:

Why would people get upset about a vampire that kills other vampires? Am I missing something?

Said vampire hunter is black and the vampires are almost all white.

[OSJ]

For fuck's sake, I never would have thought of that.  Silly fucking me.

Seems to me that all the vampires in Vampire$ were white and one of the main vampire hunters was Latino, why did no one get upset about that?  Some people should never be (a.) allowed near a computer or (b.) encouraged in any way to reproduce.

[evilwaldo]

7 minutes ago, OSJ said:

For fuck's sake, I never would have thought of that.  Silly fucking me.

With the exception of Blade's mother, I believe every Vampire in charge was white.  There are so many little nods all throughout the movie to race.

The white ruling Vampires in Blade sent police officers to take out the black Vampire hunter trying to take down the white patriarchy.  How many people got those little nods.  Without saying it, those nods were in front of you the whole time during the movie.

[Craig H]

EDIT: You know what, fuck it. Not sure what terrible opinion I defended, why I was the one called out, or why anyone with a different opinion or thought about Twitter is wrong, but being needlessly singled out while a litany of others pushed back more against what Betsy was saying is the exact reason she's been on ignore. From what OSJ quoted, I see she hasn't changed one bit.

[SorceressKnight]

Is it possible to take away other people's "likes" from your own posts? Because after that wall of text I don't want anyone thinking I speak for that dude. 

[Raziel]

20 minutes ago, OSJ said:

 

Good! Here are some other worthy topics that should prolong the life of this thread:

The Cramps were the greatest rock & roll band in the world.

Durian is very tasty and doesn't really smell all that bad.

Cats are better than dogs, and they don't eat their own shit.

Tetsuya Naito is the greatest wrestler in the world today with Pete Dunne a close second. 

NY Yankees fans eat their young.

The original lineup of GOTG was superior to the new version. 

 

See, all of those I can debate anywhere and I'd love to tell you how all of what you said there is wrong (except maybe the GOTG lineup, you might be right there).

 

What I'd like to do, seeing how I am one of the side of the "insulating yourself from opposing views is bad"  debate, is to refute the points of the Ancap Wall of Text, and I'm learyly preping for it knowing that Rippa and Dolfan have been around and haven't done anything yet,  but I'd like confirmation that I'm not wasting time.  Especially since I have agreements (and some disagreements) with Sorc and would like to get into the remote control conversation with evilwaldo more.

 

[OSJ]

Okay, let me go out on a limb here and partially defend what Craig was actually saying. This degree of toxicity has existed on the 'Net long before social media was a thing. Some of you might be too young to remember, but I've been on computers on a daily basis since 1988 and go back to the old AOL forums and Usenet. 

Now here's what might be a really odd opinion, I would much rather racist and bigoted fuckheads spew their venom in a public forum than not. Why? That way I know who they are. Trust me, it's far better to know your enemy than to have a friend of several years all of a sudden spout "I hate fags!" I'm not gay, but I've damn little tolerance for the intolerant. This was a guy that I regularly played darts with and granted most of our conversation was limited to darts and his outburst didn't come until we had to play a team of drag queens. I tried to explain that cross-dressing didn't necessarily indicate sexual preferences, but he was off and running... I founded a new team the next season.

[BurningBeard]

Tell me more about the team of drag queen dart players plz. Much like the Glam Metal Detectives I would like to see this idea turned into something great

 

[Craig H]

9 minutes ago, Raziel said:

 

See, all of those I can debate anywhere and I'd love to tell you how all of what you said there is wrong (except maybe the GOTG lineup, you might be right there).

 

What I'd like to do, seeing how I am one of the side of the "insulating yourself from opposing views is bad"  debate, is to refute the points of the Ancap Wall of Text, and I'm learyly preping for it knowing that Rippa and Dolfan have been around and haven't done anything yet,  but I'd like confirmation that I'm not wasting time.  Especially since I have agreements (and some disagreements) with Sorc and would like to get into the remote control conversation with evilwaldo more.

 

The remote control conversation is an interesting one. I'd like to think that may have played a part in cutting the cord. I just don't need the bug zapper glow of 24 news media to constantly draw me in and drive up my anxiety higher than it already is. At this point, it can't be cost for why I cut the cord because between Netflix, HBO, and everything else I'm paying about as much as I paid before.

[evilwaldo]

10 minutes ago, Raziel said:

 

See, all of those I can debate anywhere and I'd love to tell you how all of what you said there is wrong (except maybe the GOTG lineup, you might be right there).

 

What I'd like to do, seeing how I am one of the side of the "insulating yourself from opposing views is bad"  debate, is to refute the points of the Ancap Wall of Text, and I'm learyly preping for it knowing that Rippa and Dolfan have been around and haven't done anything yet,  but I'd like confirmation that I'm not wasting time.  Especially since I have agreements (and some disagreements) with Sorc and would like to get into the remote control conversation with evilwaldo more.

 

 

Here is the big problem with refuting the points.  Unless you are paying for people or bots to back you up you are more than likely to be screaming into the void.  Very few people will listen and you get low visibility.  It sucks, but that is the way social media works today.  You pay for visibility.  You pay for retweets by bots.  Yes, it is cynical but that is the way all platforms work in order to bring revenue into the platform.

Sure you feel good when you get the rush from hitting send, ok, or tweet but in the end it does very little except to ease the anxiety.

[Bustronaut]

Blocking people on twitter is exactly like founding a new darts team.  I, uh, singled Banky out because he always defends the worst thing (Hardwick, LaCroix, Louis C.K., comedians being assholes, etc. etc.) I welcome the exchange of ideas online.  I'm always trying to get idiots to support socialist ideas, and the only people I block (yes, the thousands are "only a few") have made death threats, or outed themselves as people who want me or those like me dead, in jail, or have made a targeted campaign of harassment against myself or friends.

I do kinda love that Banky can't even take a modicum of ribbing on a message board from someone he's known for almost 20 damn years, yet continues to bang on about echo chambers.

[OSJ]

5 minutes ago, CreativeControl said:

Tell me more about the team of drag queen dart players plz. Much like the Glam Metal Detectives I would like to see this idea turned into something great

 

Really nice folks, bloody awful dart players. Played out of the Kort Haus Tavern in Seattle. An interesting bunch, one of them had better legs than any woman I've ever seen and another looked like Lurch from Addams Family in a dress.  Different strokes and all that....

[Raziel]

16 minutes ago, Craig H said:

EDIT: You know what, fuck it. Not sure what terrible opinion I defended, why I was the one called out, or why anyone with a different opinion or thought about Twitter is wrong, but being needlessly singled out while a litany of others pushed back more against what Betsy was saying is the exact reason she's been on ignore. From what OSJ quoted, I see she hasn't changed one bit.

The opinion you defending I'm assuming is my "insulating yourself against opinions you don't like leads to you becoming as bad as the other side".  I'm assuming, because it was only met with a meme instead of any counter.

 

To OSJ:

 

Yeah, it existed in the  Usenet days,  and hell, toxic opinions have existed since the dawn of time.  Like we say back in the Endless September when AOL went pay-by-month and the Internet, most specifically the World Wide Web and Usenet went from small gatherings of tech geeks to publically available.  Back in the Usenet days, you could insulate yourself, because most of the stupidity was limited to AOL forums except for the worst that were directed to Usenet.  But, the issue is, you don't need a phone line and a PC and a bit of knowhow to get to the gathering of toxic shitlords that want everything to go back to a mythcial 50's/60's that didn't actually exist but have been told it was great by people making shit tons of money preying on their fears, you can just get there with a click of a Facebook link.  And it's glamorized in the News, because News isn't info driven, it's ratings and clicks driven.  You can't insulate yourself against stuff you don't want to know about because it exists, it's in the main stream now, and it'll always find a way in.  Not learning about it sets yourself for failure at best, and like Sorc mentioned, increases the likely hood that you turn into the other side of the same coin at worst.  

 

It's the political horseshoe theory.  That instead of being a line, or a 2 axis point chart, the spectrum is a horseshoe, where the further away you get from center, you start looping back in and at it's core, the two sides are indistinguishible from each other, but seperate in that their views are different, but methods are just as drastic.

[OSJ]

Raz:

You remember AOL forums and Usenet and you don't remember Chad Bryant, Emmett Gulley, Stone Golem, etc.?

[Craig H]

16 minutes ago, Raziel said:

The opinion you defending I'm assuming is my "insulating yourself against opinions you don't like leads to you becoming as bad as the other side".  I'm assuming, because it was only met with a meme instead of any counter.

Man, I sure as shit didn't think I was defending that, but she just sees anything I type out as worth trolling so whatever. In going back, yeah, I really don't see how I was defending that or how my petri dish analogy was any sort of defense of that. Maybe it was because I "liked" your comment about insulating yourself against opinions, which, again, I wasn't the only one.

Anyway, whatever. I should learn to not get trolled by her.

Back to the rest of what you we're saying, that ties into my petri dish post where you had to do work to get to the gathering of shitheads and toxic conspiracy theorists and the places they hung out, like forums, weren't very sexy or even easy to use. Sorry, DVDVR as a forum just isn't a sexy or easily accessible form of social media.  Twitter and Facebook are though. Like you said, all you have to do is get on Facebook and the "news" bullshit is right there. It also doesn't help that somehow Facebook's algorithm for showing you what it thinks you want to see has only become worse.

I almost miss Facebook. It was my way of keeping in touch with family and friends, some of who are spread across the country. It was our way to see how our families were doing. And every time I think that I'll just get back to posting pictures of my family so my wheelchair and apartment bound mom can at least see what we're doing, I'm greeted with total bullshit. Why in the hell do I need to see some hardcore gun nut bullshit posted by the one person on my friends list who has those views as the first post in my feed and it was from days ago? Why is the post after that a conspiracy theory?! I used to bitch that Facebook was just becoming people showing results of their surveys for what Harry Potter character they're most like, recipe videos, and chain posts where you say the first thing you've done for multiple scenarios before sharing with other people on your friends list. I'd GLADLY go back to that over whatever it is now. And I don't want to have to unfriend friends or family. I just don't want their bullshit right in my face when I get on and I don't want their bullshit influencing the news ticker on the right because that sends my anxiety through the roof.

[SorceressKnight]

24 minutes ago, Betsy Zeidler said:

Blocking people on twitter is exactly like founding a new darts team.  I, uh, singled Banky out because he always defends the worst thing (Hardwick, LaCroix, Louis C.K., comedians being assholes, etc. etc.) I welcome the exchange of ideas online.  I'm always trying to get idiots to support socialist ideas, and the only people I block (yes, the thousands are "only a few") have made death threats, or outed themselves as people who want me or those like me dead, in jail, or have made a targeted campaign of harassment against myself or friends.

Explaining it that way does change my original point of screaming into the void, because death threats and people who expose their hatred for you or people like you, as I said, were things that are obviously dealbreakers and things that no sane person would want to associate with. Those are the things that really, people probably should cut out from their lives as soon as possible.

The problem, as I said, is that people on social media seem to take that line of "you made death threats/rape threats to someone? Fuck you, you're done" or "You hate me and people like me? Bye forever", and lower the line of what constitutes being worthy of being rendered an unperson or being rendered worthy of being blocked/banned forever, and thus worthy of being seen as an evil monster worthy of having no hope of functioning in a modern society. 

And that's the problem, because too much of people's choosing to give up on someone forever can go downwards and downwards. It does go down to "You're a Republican and I'm a Democrat", or "You have a differing viewpoint on this hot button issue", or "You believe the same thing as I do, but you're not as militant about it as I am"...and when fandoms go into play, it can go down to (using a wrestling example on a wrestling board) "I think Becky Lynch should be SD Women's Champion, you say Naomi's equally as deserving- DIE HERETIC!", and so on and so forth. 

[Contentious C]

@Craig H  There's been a "Restricted" setting on FB for a long, long time. Through Groups or Friend Lists or whatever it is. You never see certain people's stuff, and they never know they're there.

@SorceressKnight  One HUUUUUGE problem with the point you're trying to make is that people have been self-sorting that way for millenia. It seems worse on social media because, like all things that survive and thrive, social media self-amplifies. Things really aren't worse now in the U.S. - not compared to, say, Vietnam protests and the like within our own lifetimes (roughly).

[John from Cincinnati]

Reading the manifesto on the previous page, I'm left with one thought:

There's no way crunkcore is a real thing.

[SorceressKnight]

14 minutes ago, Contentious C said:

 

@SorceressKnight  One HUUUUUGE problem with the point you're trying to make is that people have been self-sorting that way for millenia. It seems worse on social media because, like all things that survive and thrive, social media self-amplifies. Things really aren't worse now in the U.S. - not compared to, say, Vietnam protests and the like within our own lifetimes (roughly).

I agree that people self-sort that way for millennia, but that's my whole point as well.

The whole difference is that in most cases when people self-sort, then there's still a case where in real life, if you DO self-sort them, you have to still find a way to coexist with that person, even if you disagree with them. Screw just "I ship this pairing, you ship this pairing- we can never be friends!"  not going to mesh in real life to kick someone out of your life, it can go further. For the most extreme example, if you're at your workplace, and someone you work with reveals they believe one of those dealbreakers, you can obviously choose to never socialize with that person again...but it is a bit harder to go to your boss and say "This person admitted they're bigoted against me. Either he goes or I go!" and you do have to ask yourself "Am I willing to quit my job so I never have to deal with this person again? Can I AFFORD to quit my job to never have to deal with them again?"

Social media, on the other hand, doesn't mean you have to stop self-sorting people, but rather that it's easier to demonize those people. As OSJ said, it's easier to know who's saying something evil because you KNOW who's saying something. When people are just words on a screen, it's easy to assume they're bots, or trolls, or monsters- and that line of thinking, as Craig said, can lead people to get a gun and go to a pizza place to free kidnapped children in a basement they don't have...or on the opposite side, it can also lead someone to get a gun and start hunting Republicans. 

[OSJ]

Once again SK, I have to disagree just a bit. Shunning monsters that threaten rape and murder is not a problem for me at all. If you believe in Hell, there's a special place for folks of that ilk. Again, I am not agreeing at all with absolutism save as it pertains to sociopaths and other fuckheads. I'll cheerfully debate politics, religion or what have you in the appropriate places (not here), the key as I keep banging on about is respect for differing viewpoints. You will never change another's opinion by calling them names or outright dismissing their opinions.

[SorceressKnight]

5 minutes ago, OSJ said:

Once again SK, I have to disagree just a bit. Shunning monsters that threaten rape and murder is not a problem for me at all. If you believe in Hell, there's a special place for folks of that ilk. Again, I am not agreeing at all with absolutism save as it pertains to sociopaths and other fuckheads. I'll cheerfully debate politics, religion or what have you in the appropriate places (not here), the key as I keep banging on about is respect for differing viewpoints. You will never change another's opinion by calling them names or outright dismissing their opinions.

I absolutely agree that shunning those people is not a problem, on social media. That is not a problem.

The real problem comes in real life- where, as I said, there's some places that you just aren't able to shun those people. Again, with the example I made. If it's someone who you find is intolerant as a friend or even a family member, it's possible to say "We can't be friends anymore."

If it's a co-worker, for example? The question becomes  "Are you willing- or ABLE- to walk away from your job if it means never having to deal with that person again?" Likewise, if you have a job in the service industry, and you know for a fact one of your customers did that, are you willing- or ABLE- to say "I can't serve you anymore- you're not welcome here", or are you willing to say "If the choice is between serving this person or not working here, I'm willing to walk away?" There are cases where you just can't completely shun some people, even when they deserve shunning.

[evilwaldo]

1 hour ago, Raziel said:

The opinion you defending I'm assuming is my "insulating yourself against opinions you don't like leads to you becoming as bad as the other side".  I'm assuming, because it was only met with a meme instead of any counter.

 

To OSJ:

 

Yeah, it existed in the  Usenet days,  and hell, toxic opinions have existed since the dawn of time.  Like we say back in the Endless September when AOL went pay-by-month and the Internet, most specifically the World Wide Web and Usenet went from small gatherings of tech geeks to publically available.  Back in the Usenet days, you could insulate yourself, because most of the stupidity was limited to AOL forums except for the worst that were directed to Usenet.  But, the issue is, you don't need a phone line and a PC and a bit of knowhow to get to the gathering of toxic shitlords that want everything to go back to a mythcial 50's/60's that didn't actually exist but have been told it was great by people making shit tons of money preying on their fears, you can just get there with a click of a Facebook link.  And it's glamorized in the News, because News isn't info driven, it's ratings and clicks driven.  You can't insulate yourself against stuff you don't want to know about because it exists, it's in the main stream now, and it'll always find a way in.  Not learning about it sets yourself for failure at best, and like Sorc mentioned, increases the likely hood that you turn into the other side of the same coin at worst.  

 

It's the political horseshoe theory.  That instead of being a line, or a 2 axis point chart, the spectrum is a horseshoe, where the further away you get from center, you start looping back in and at it's core, the two sides are indistinguishible from each other, but seperate in that their views are different, but methods are just as drastic.

In the Usenet days, there was no option to monetize so those opinions were looked at as people just trolling to get others all stirred up.  Today, you pay to have your views blasted all over the Internet.

 

In terms of isolating yourself online, I just tell Apple News to send me less of certain content.  I can tell them I don't want to see stuff from fake news sites and set notifications to see more of things that matter to me.  I don't see it as isolation.  I see it as using the tools available in the way they were meant to be used.  Google does not give two sheets, they just send you everything even if you tell them no.  Same with Youtube, Instagram, and Facebook.

It all comes down to the color of money.  Look at Google who happily took money to place anti-LGBT ads in LGBT content and suppress LGBT channels during Pride.  They apologized at the end of the month when they were done taking everyone's money.  They will do the same for everyone.  They don't care about either side or causes, all they care about is the color of money, they don't care where it comes from.  

Sorry to be so cynical but it is the reality of today.  I don't allow a faceless algorithm to control me.  The best way to combat the paid content is not to view it so the content ends up screaming into the void.

Those sites will not crack down on the paid content unless forced because it means decreasing social media metrics and lower ad revenue.  Look at Facebook yesterday which sad it would focus more on privacy at the expense of ad revenue.  20% drop in the stock price.  Guess what will happen today inside of Facebook?  A new push to increase advertising at the expense of privacy so that the stock price can get going again.

 

 

[OSJ]

10 minutes ago, SorceressKnight said:

I absolutely agree that shunning those people is not a problem, on social media. That is not a problem.

The real problem comes in real life- where, as I said, there's some places that you just aren't able to shun those people. Again, with the example I made. If it's someone who you find is intolerant as a friend or even a family member, it's possible to say "We can't be friends anymore."

If it's a co-worker, for example? The question becomes  "Are you willing- or ABLE- to walk away from your job if it means never having to deal with that person again?" Likewise, if you have a job in the service industry, and you know for a fact one of your customers did that, are you willing- or ABLE- to say "I can't serve you anymore- you're not welcome here", or are you willing to say "If the choice is between serving this person or not working here, I'm willing to walk away?" There are cases where you just can't completely shun some people, even when they deserve shunning.

Hard for me to address this... When I did work for others, (quite a long time ago), without bragging, I was pretty highly in demand by various competitors, so the idea of walking away if someone pissed me off enough was never a problem. Generally speaking, if I became irritated I'd just go to the local and play pinball for an hour or so, or go into the gym and kick fuck out of the heavy bag. 

Back in my youth as a bartender I had a big sign behind the bar:

House Rules: #1 The bartender is always right!

#2 If you think the bartender is wrong, please refer to Rule #1.