So you don't think that donors and even old people will come to see him as a pathetic and embarrassing figure on the basis of performances like last night's? I found myself wondering if he even can stay in the race.
Don't see right now who beats Harris. Who in this field? How? So I expect concern-trolling from the right and gotcha-picking from the further-left to increase.
She's by no means wart-less, and her priorities aren't mine, but in addition to being, to paraphrase Ezra Klein, the most plausible unity candidate for the DP as it is today, she channels the urge of the broad anti-Trump center and left to prosecute the Beast and his minions - or qualifies as "charismatic" in somewhat the same way Trump does.* Warren also possesses that quality to an extent, but she's not as comprehensively the anti-Trump.
I agree that the latter pseudo-ALIENs were lacking in scientific credibility, but I could excuse the flaws more easily, if not quite completely, as artistic license for the sake of propelling the stories forward. ANNIHILATION demands the same type of suspension of disbelief, but to an extreme, since the lack of even minimal info about what's inside the Shimmer is the central problem, people are going off on suicide missions in vain hope of solving it, and, as you point out, our very science-y scientists have apparently had plenty of time - upwards of a year - to come up with alternatives: It's like LIFEBOAT, except in a swimming pool, not the ocean, so anyone could reach safety with just a little bit of paddling, but no one does.
Enjoyed the film, and I don't usually do this, but I couldn't shakes the gnawing question why they couldn't gradually investigate, a foot at a time if necessary, and from underground, by sea, and by air as well as by strolling into the mystery with backpacks and assault rifles. If the drones don't come back, attach cables to them. Organize a hands across the Shimmer party...
I like the Bourne fights and the Daniel Craig as Bond fights - especially Casino Royale, which was heavily under the influence of the Bournes. The emphasis is on a certain style of street fighting but equally on the sheer brutality of "fighting to the death, hand to hand." The movies want, in their way, to help you imagine what it would be like to be, help you put yourself in the place of, a supremely skilled fighter fighting to the death, hand to hand against another supremely skilled fighter.
I'm not going to criticize the Jackie Chan or Crouching Tiger approaches. They are based on different intentions, and why should I set out to ruin other people's fun? Plus I like Jackie Chan fighting. It's just not very fight-y. It's more "dancing in the mode of fight."
Eventually, the Bourne and Craig-Bond fighting is also balletic dance for non-ballet-ish people. I even quite like the Anakin/Obi-Wan fight, which I likewise viewed as dramatic dancing and Sprechgesang within the extended grand finale of a space opera, governed as much by musical and symbolic as by "naturalistic dramatic" values. Degrees of naturalism are important to cinematic sci-fi, but gross violations of it are also normal, especially in Star Wars movies.
(though not comment submissions - I wonder if this is something new or if it's always been kind of laggy, been a while since I commented here regularly)
our primary paid advertising platform for selling tickets is Facebook.
Curious to know what comparisons were done to other paid advertising platforms. How do you know that Facebook is worth this trouble in addition to the $$$?
Why would you presume that any "case for any kind of human morality," which would be a case in favor of cases etc., could be anything other than circular or "question-begging"?
The preamble also uses the word "sacred" in reference to all of the rights about to be enunciated - as in "natural, inalienable, and sacred." The final article, number 17, also refers specifically to the right of property as "sacred."
@will-truman note that in the linked article the disparity observed is much wider:
The study shows Democrats were almost three times more likely than Republicans (24% vs. 9%) to have unfriended someone after the election. A similar disparity turned up for self-identified liberals versus conservatives (28% vs. 8%). Meanwhile, only 9% of independents reportedly booted someone out of their online social circles because of politics.
There are a number of possible explanations for the different rates at which various groups unfriended others over politics.
One is that Democrats may be feeling despondent about the election, and are thus more inclined to block stories about Donald Trump or victorious conservatives. Another is that liberals and women may be more frequent targets of online trolls, leading them to block more often.
Ya think maybe? Gang-trolling attacks on outspoken liberals, especially women, were a constant feature of social media in 2016, and a far more likely explanation both directly and indirectly, in my estimation, for such a huge disparity between right and left, although the "losers fed up" explanation especially in this particular election might also carry some weight.
Relevant for the current discussion, which is also a meta-discussion: It was often said that Trump and his campaign were like the triumph of the comments section. People who said that did not mainly have the genteel discussion at OT in mind. They specifically had in mind the kind of non-discussion that the mute button is intended to help deter or deflect.
Interesting underlying question here as to the relationship between "style," or preferred mode of discussion, and ideology. They don't always go together, at least as one might expect, but in American political life at the moment a brusque or even brutal verbal style and so-called nationalist populism do tend to do so. "Only out-of-touch coastal elites use multiple-syllable words, spell and punctuate carefully, and need sequences of full sentences to express themselves. Red-blooded Americans exclaim things in uppercase and don't need to speak clearly since everyone who really matters already understands everything that really matters."
Will H.: It is a fact that it is most often persons of the Left who ‘unfriend’ people on FB due to differences in political tastes.
I think there is a real problem with specifically leftwing intolerance, but there are many other possible explanations for that FB phenomenon, presuming its real.
Btw, the more pervasive option you're describing - where you can block offending parties from comment subscription emails - and also widgets, RSS feeds, and everywhere or most anywhere else - would of course be doable, but would, I believe, for all practical purposes have to be implemented as a registered-users privilege.
That would also go for being able to block/mute across browsers, since Commenter Ignore Button is a cookie-based tool. @burt-likko didn't mention it, but, if you switch browsers or clear your cookies frequently, you'll have to block/mute over again after each switch/clear.
Which raises the question that the tool is intended to raise: If a troll trolls in a thread, but he is on ignore, has he really trolled?
Nothing to do with present company, of course.
One larger purpose of the tool is also to offer an incentive to shape up to trolls or borderline trolls or people who recognize that they are viewed as trolls. In a normal comment thread, they operate under the expectation of a captive audience or something like it, and the belief born of experience that volunteer commenting firefighters won't be able to resist stamping on their burning paper bags of trollery, in order to protect the record or the people or whatever against the troll-threat. If the firefighters can reduce their stamping by some significant percentage, then the incentive to troll should be reduced somewhat proportionately already on that basis, while the source of troll-fuel should also be reduced.
The effect may not be to prevent all troll-fires, but every commenting system will involve trade-offs.
Or you can just use the tool as a way to focus on the comments on which you want to focus. That can be easier in conjunction with a full "suite" of commenting tools, including comment/commenter highlighting, comment up/down voting, and promotion of "extraordinary" comments.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Debatable: The Slog in South Beach Part 2”
That is SO 18 hours ago... https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/
"
So you don't think that donors and even old people will come to see him as a pathetic and embarrassing figure on the basis of performances like last night's? I found myself wondering if he even can stay in the race.
"
Don't see right now who beats Harris. Who in this field? How? So I expect concern-trolling from the right and gotcha-picking from the further-left to increase.
She's by no means wart-less, and her priorities aren't mine, but in addition to being, to paraphrase Ezra Klein, the most plausible unity candidate for the DP as it is today, she channels the urge of the broad anti-Trump center and left to prosecute the Beast and his minions - or qualifies as "charismatic" in somewhat the same way Trump does.* Warren also possesses that quality to an extent, but she's not as comprehensively the anti-Trump.
*https://t.co/Wh5WVyUUBg
On “Daydreams of Impeachment”
"Here’s country music sensation and one of my favorite Twitter personalities George Takei."
Say what?
On ““Annihilation” Movie Review”
I agree that the latter pseudo-ALIENs were lacking in scientific credibility, but I could excuse the flaws more easily, if not quite completely, as artistic license for the sake of propelling the stories forward. ANNIHILATION demands the same type of suspension of disbelief, but to an extreme, since the lack of even minimal info about what's inside the Shimmer is the central problem, people are going off on suicide missions in vain hope of solving it, and, as you point out, our very science-y scientists have apparently had plenty of time - upwards of a year - to come up with alternatives: It's like LIFEBOAT, except in a swimming pool, not the ocean, so anyone could reach safety with just a little bit of paddling, but no one does.
"
Enjoyed the film, and I don't usually do this, but I couldn't shakes the gnawing question why they couldn't gradually investigate, a foot at a time if necessary, and from underground, by sea, and by air as well as by strolling into the mystery with backpacks and assault rifles. If the drones don't come back, attach cables to them. Organize a hands across the Shimmer party...
It bothered me.
On “The Fighting Movie is Dead”
I like the Bourne fights and the Daniel Craig as Bond fights - especially Casino Royale, which was heavily under the influence of the Bournes. The emphasis is on a certain style of street fighting but equally on the sheer brutality of "fighting to the death, hand to hand." The movies want, in their way, to help you imagine what it would be like to be, help you put yourself in the place of, a supremely skilled fighter fighting to the death, hand to hand against another supremely skilled fighter.
I'm not going to criticize the Jackie Chan or Crouching Tiger approaches. They are based on different intentions, and why should I set out to ruin other people's fun? Plus I like Jackie Chan fighting. It's just not very fight-y. It's more "dancing in the mode of fight."
Eventually, the Bourne and Craig-Bond fighting is also balletic dance for non-ballet-ish people. I even quite like the Anakin/Obi-Wan fight, which I likewise viewed as dramatic dancing and Sprechgesang within the extended grand finale of a space opera, governed as much by musical and symbolic as by "naturalistic dramatic" values. Degrees of naturalism are important to cinematic sci-fi, but gross violations of it are also normal, especially in Star Wars movies.
Y'all checked out Atomic Blonde yet?
On “Linky Friday: Gods and Robots”
(Plus comment subscriptions don't work for me. Didn't last time I was checking either.)
"
(though not comment submissions - I wonder if this is something new or if it's always been kind of laggy, been a while since I commented here regularly)
"
You're welcome. Hope it all works. If it doesn't achieve the main objective, at least the site seems to be zipping along very fast now.
"
testing something else while I'm here
"
dang js just don't want to optimize
On “Old Dominion”
Ain't no fixing winter.
On “Moore Context”
But why not "Stranger Thing"?
On “Making the Internet a Better, Safer Space”
Curious to know what comparisons were done to other paid advertising platforms. How do you know that Facebook is worth this trouble in addition to the $$$?
On “Human Rights & God”
Why would you presume that any "case for any kind of human morality," which would be a case in favor of cases etc., could be anything other than circular or "question-begging"?
"
The preamble also uses the word "sacred" in reference to all of the rights about to be enunciated - as in "natural, inalienable, and sacred." The final article, number 17, also refers specifically to the right of property as "sacred."
On “Linky Friday: The Saga Continues”
Thanks for the link to that very serious 2012 April Fools Day post - pleasant surprise!
On “A New Site Feature”
@will-truman note that in the linked article the disparity observed is much wider:
"
Says the writer:
Ya think maybe? Gang-trolling attacks on outspoken liberals, especially women, were a constant feature of social media in 2016, and a far more likely explanation both directly and indirectly, in my estimation, for such a huge disparity between right and left, although the "losers fed up" explanation especially in this particular election might also carry some weight.
Relevant for the current discussion, which is also a meta-discussion: It was often said that Trump and his campaign were like the triumph of the comments section. People who said that did not mainly have the genteel discussion at OT in mind. They specifically had in mind the kind of non-discussion that the mute button is intended to help deter or deflect.
"
Interesting underlying question here as to the relationship between "style," or preferred mode of discussion, and ideology. They don't always go together, at least as one might expect, but in American political life at the moment a brusque or even brutal verbal style and so-called nationalist populism do tend to do so. "Only out-of-touch coastal elites use multiple-syllable words, spell and punctuate carefully, and need sequences of full sentences to express themselves. Red-blooded Americans exclaim things in uppercase and don't need to speak clearly since everyone who really matters already understands everything that really matters."
"
I think there is a real problem with specifically leftwing intolerance, but there are many other possible explanations for that FB phenomenon, presuming its real.
"
You're too kind, @will-h Now that I have a tool for ignoring everyone but myself, I may return more often. ;)
"
@veronica-d
Btw, the more pervasive option you're describing - where you can block offending parties from comment subscription emails - and also widgets, RSS feeds, and everywhere or most anywhere else - would of course be doable, but would, I believe, for all practical purposes have to be implemented as a registered-users privilege.
That would also go for being able to block/mute across browsers, since Commenter Ignore Button is a cookie-based tool. @burt-likko didn't mention it, but, if you switch browsers or clear your cookies frequently, you'll have to block/mute over again after each switch/clear.
"
Which raises the question that the tool is intended to raise: If a troll trolls in a thread, but he is on ignore, has he really trolled?
Nothing to do with present company, of course.
One larger purpose of the tool is also to offer an incentive to shape up to trolls or borderline trolls or people who recognize that they are viewed as trolls. In a normal comment thread, they operate under the expectation of a captive audience or something like it, and the belief born of experience that volunteer commenting firefighters won't be able to resist stamping on their burning paper bags of trollery, in order to protect the record or the people or whatever against the troll-threat. If the firefighters can reduce their stamping by some significant percentage, then the incentive to troll should be reduced somewhat proportionately already on that basis, while the source of troll-fuel should also be reduced.
The effect may not be to prevent all troll-fires, but every commenting system will involve trade-offs.
Or you can just use the tool as a way to focus on the comments on which you want to focus. That can be easier in conjunction with a full "suite" of commenting tools, including comment/commenter highlighting, comment up/down voting, and promotion of "extraordinary" comments.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.