I don’t think nazis are the ones that decided the gay pride colour though (it was purple). I think it was someone else that decided.
I don’t think nazis are the ones that decided the gay pride colour though (it was purple). I think it was someone else that decided.
Just looked it up. White is white pride, red is neo-nazi (and often, willing to spill blood), yellow is anti-racist. Not sure why that last one’s a bad thing, though.
Black was neutral, because that’s the colour doc martens usually come with.
In a youtube video by Matt Baume, he discussed two types of protestors against offensive gay representation in the media.
The first group was loud and disruptive. One guy broke into the news room and yelled over the anchor about the injustice. Another guy handcuffed himself to a camera. It was a problem that could shut down production entirely.
The second group was calm and willing to negotiate. However, the only reason they were listened to by the networks was because of the first group. They even had whistles to ruin the filming if they weren’t listened to. But they were, and filming went without a hitch after that.
It’s not the peaceful path, but some people don’t want the peaceful path. They want violence. Give them more violence than they can handle (or at least the threat of it) until they beg for peace, THEN take the peaceful path.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I mean, it might be a good excuse. Doesn’t change the slur.
In Blazing Saddles, the actors playing the racists apologised to their co-stars after every take. They had a damn good excuse to say what they said, but they still apologised for saying it.
Just to make it clear, I am white, so take my opinion on this with a grain of salt.
From what I understand, there isn’t a universal consensus among black communities that the n-word is okay between black people. Some people get just as offended no matter who says it.
Of course, some people are perfectly fine with it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a slur. It’s still a slur, it’s just not offending anyone at that moment. It’s like an empty gun: it won’t harm anyone, but it’s still a gun.
Utterly incorrect. Irony does not affect whether a thing is a slur or not. It doesn’t matter what you use the slur towards, it remains a slur. Any excuse you use to explain why you can use a slur is exactly that: an excuse.
Scary Movie 3. Among many reasons that’s a film you shouldn’t watch as a child, that was my introduction to the Ring, and I had a TV in my room.
Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “good”.
When I make maps for ttrpgs, I’ve started using a tool that is, let’s be honest, kinda crap. The maps I can make using it can only ever be “good enough.” This is good, because it means I don’t spent hours trying to make it perfect, and instead just finish prepping other things.
Do you wanna check your math there?
Oh, I know. And I double checked wikipedia to see what the critical response was. Carrie Fisher liked how it looked. Reviewers said it was “weird and unsettling”, “particularly plastic” or “distractingly artificial.”
I don’t think “if at first you don’t succeed” applies here. Like, I’m annoyed they tried once. I think a more applicable adage is “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
With Disney capital to pay for high-end technology that looked amazing, we found the result was passable at best. Peter Cushing’s estate, run by his former secretary, said it was okay, but the overwhelming response from audiences was that it was disrespectful.
We know we couldn’t, and we know we shouldn’t. So let’s not.
Remember that time they used CG to bring back Peter Cushing in Rogue One? Remember how bad it looked? Remember how disrespectful it was? Maybe we shouldn’t do it again.
Yeah, this question is like being asked “what’s your favourite STI”. They’re all unpleasant, so I’d rather not have any.
I’m willing to bet there was some islamaphobia in those rejected screenplays.
I don’t know about being a flat earther, but I know for a fact they’re a moon landing denier. Very unkeen on evidence, that one.
…You just answered your own question. He was delivering supplies. That’s the point.
Although, in the case of oxygen, he was picking up trash (carbon) to take out with him. And he went through the whole place to make sure he got it all.
A man enters a room and leaves with a box. In the process of picking up the box, he became a man carrying a box. This is not transmutation.
I put some beans on my toast. In the process, it becomes beans on toast. This is not transmutation.
Two things became one combination of two things. Neither thing has fundamentally changed.
There was a Dara O’Brien bit from a while ago where he said about herbal medicine “We tested it, and we called the stuff that worked ‘medicine’. Everything else is a nice herbal tea and some potpourri.” Same basic idea.
Instead of making assumptions and asking “why did people”, start asking “did people”. The answer is no, they did not. Nobody has changed sides.
We already have the term “virgin” for people who haven’t had sex. The reason they made a new term is so the “involuntarily” part makes them a victim. See, it’s not just that they aren’t having sex (which they TOTALLY deserve, btw), but they’re being actively denied it.
It’s a term born in anger and a need to blame someone else. If you don’t feel that need, you don’t use the term.