Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Where do you fall on Harry Potter? I related a story a few days ago on Bluesky how reading Goblet of Fire was one of my treasured memories of hanging out with my dog. I have relatively good feelings about the series, and I recognize its flaws. The movies are fun and the majority of the cast seem to be decent people who have distanced themselves from her. It also had a pretty significant cultural impact.

But, it's not so part of my life that I think about it too much. I still have the books I bought when they came out two decades ago, and I think we have the DVDs (but maybe not a player?). He's only 2.5, so we have a few years before it'd be appropriate to start reading them. I guess I'll wait for him to ask?

Every word out of her mouth is worse than the last (though I don't think she has said anything since she misgendered an athlete at the Olympics), and I do not want to support her in any way. There are literally thousands of other stories and series from non-bigoted (or at least non-publicly bigoted with massive platforms to spew their bigotry) writers out there.

We've watched some of the movies, I think, but she hasn't been all that interested. Maybe it won't come up? If it does, will probably let her watch and try to get books from the library instead of buying.

A trans family member bought her a bunch of Percy Jackson stuff as an alternative, but rather a bit early as that's above her reading level still and that was maybe two years ago.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

I mostly agree. But John Stewart did get a lot of shit from the on-line left when he returned to the Daily Show and immediately started "noticing" Biden's age (pre-debate).

Ollie

Yep. The right does not have a monopoly on humorlessness.

[Replaced_Texan]

sorry the site was down. Someone tried to buy a linkedin premium account with my card and so I had to get a new one. Some automatic payments I didn't catch with the new info.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think this is mostly right. It depends so much on the context, and on the nature of the making fun. When jokes are clearly in the service of politics, people respond to them as politics. But when a comedian earns an audience's trust, he or she can go and will go after their own side. For example, Jimmy Kimmel makes jokes about Biden's age all the time. His audience laughs.

There are bad comedians out there. But good ones too.

That trust is deemed necessary by so many is depressing as well. Comedy should be fearless. And a thing said that's funny should be funny in almost any context. "Eating the dogs and cats" is universally funny. It can't be anything else. Harris' word salads can be very funny. Some not so much, but others very much. And Biden staring into space, dazed, might be a mean thing to mock, but it's also comical when cited using the right comedic touch.

Greg Gutfeld is not very funny, IMO. Nor is Steven Colbert. They're both quite openly political and preachy, and so, as you note, their jokes fall flat. But there are a ton of openly anti-Trump comedians out there who are objectively funny, even with a clear agenda. And there are a number (far fewer, I think) conservative (or anti-woke... to which group the fewer caveat does not apply) comedians out there who are very funny. I'm not sure I need to "trust" the views of these people, or that they're on my side, to find them funny. I honestly don't care about their views. Their politics are immaterial. If they're out to smear a candidate and it's funny, it's still funny. Their inner beliefs should be of zero importance.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not sure assaulting and blacklisting young actresses was entirely within the scope of his personal life, and I do try to be mindful of where I am sending resources, but yes. It does mean I'd prefer to get the kids Harry Potter books from the library over the bookstore.

I don't see the issue with Rowling. She defines women narrowly. She picks fights with trans activists.

This issue touches .005% of humanity and we talk about it like it's the most pressing issue on the planet. The right loves to prattle on about men swimming with women, and phantom fears of sexual assault in the bathroom by trans people. The left acts like if one doesn't buy their novel and dubious quasi-scientific arguments on the matter, one is akin a guard at Dachau.

Give me a fucking break.

Are trans women actually women? I don't know. I also don't think the issue will ever be solved because people who are deeply invested in these things have views that long ago left the planes of logic and science and there's just no point trying to litigate this stuff. The best one can say is, "Who cares? Why not just be tolerant? If the chic science (really anthropology) on the subject is rubbish, what's the big deal?" Again, it's .005% of people.

I do think people born biological males should not be competing in women's sports. That one we can litigate because there's simply no counter, save perhaps the argument, "Well, if a biological male is smaller, on par in terms of strength with a woman, he's technically on even footing, so he should be able to compete." That argument is persuasive. It's also rarer than being struck by lightning twice in an afternoon. (Similarly, women with skill adequate to compete with males should be allowed to do so. If Serena Williams could beat 70% of male tennis players, which I'll bet she could, there ought to be a mixed-sex league where she could do so.)

Rowling is entitled to her view, and she's entitled to call out what she sees as bullshit. And one is entitled to refute her or boycott her if he likes. But of all the considerations that might enter my head when I walk into a bookstore, an author's joinders within the "trans controversies," as incoherent as these "debates" (really, political wedges used by the parties and activists on both sides to manipulate the credulous) about trans issues are, are about as significant to me as the author's diet.

Personally, I'm of the belief Rowling was slumming it to even get involved in such a debate. She's taking bait on which a person at her level should better sense than to bite.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I have to hope that half the country really doesn't want to round up people, separate them from their families, put them in concentration camps, and then maybe ship them to another country. But the polling suggests that the majority want mass deportations.

From a battleground, I'd say that more than half the country falls into a precariate.

In that fragile state, anything and everything is potential destabilizing event that could lead to financial ruin. Immigration is but one of many.

Are there some cruel people out there? Yup, but it's a small number. I'd guess the majority of people who want tighter borders simply view it as a way of controlling a society, and an economy, that are rapidly changing in ways that they perceive to be bad for them.

And what do the fortunate of us say to these people? "Oh, you fools. The economy is great. You just don't see it." Or, "You're racists!"

These two angles - bullshitting and trying to shame people - have not worked very well. Joe Sixpack isn't inventing inflation of whole cloth. It isn't in his head. It's very real to him. And I don't think he wants to hear a Chamber of Commerce libertarian like me say, "Well, immigration helps to keep certain prices down, particularly labor."

There's also an issue of fairness. People get really hung up on that concept. In the same way I'll hear a progressive insist on equity, I'll hear a MAGA person insist that if one wants to come into the country, such person is obligated to wait in line like everyone else. (And that's why, polls indicate, a ton of Latinos in the Rust Belt are now Trump voters. People who had to play the game resent those jumping the line.)

Illegal immigrants are just the poor bastards gifted the position of cudgel by both parties to gin up votes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

. The best one can say is, "Who cares? Why not just be tolerant?

Yes. A stranger's gender is not something you should care about. If you choose to care about it, it makes you a freaking creep.

I do think people born biological males should not be competing in women's sports.

The problem with caring about it for the tiny fraction of .005% of people where it is relevant is that invites policing the bodies of cis women too. Those Olympic boxers did not deserve any of that.

If we must, we can have some rules about people who have gone through puberty as a boy, but again, it is a tiny number of people and it opens a can of worms, so do we even need that? And hopefully even that number will dwindle as acceptance of trans kids grows and they get puberty blockers.

If Serena Williams could beat 70% of male tennis players, which I'll bet she could, there ought to be a mixed-sex league where she could do so.)

Olympic shooting (I think it was), only got gender classes after women started winning.

[Hank Chinaski]

Kamala is on Howard Stern tomorrow. In 2018 (or so) Hillary went on and admitted she felt if she she’d have won. Fingers crossed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That trust is deemed necessary by so many is depressing as well. Comedy should be fearless. And a thing said that's funny should be funny in almost any context. "Eating the dogs and cats" is universally funny. It can't be anything else. Harris' word salads can be very funny. Some not so much, but others very much. And Biden staring into space, dazed, might be a mean thing to mock, but it's also comical when cited using the right comedic touch.

I think you misunderstand what I am saying about trust, which is about creating a relationship with an audience so that the comedian can do material about a controversial subjects. The very same joke can work or fall flat depending on the set and the comedian. The idea that something funny should be funny in almost any context just misses how comedy actually works.

Greg Gutfeld is not very funny, IMO.

Wouldn't know, don't know his stuff, but if I were looking for comedy I'd go to Netflix, not Fox News.

Nor is Steven Colbert.

I think Colbert can be awesome, but I don't watch his show. The late-night talk-show monologue is a tough format, because of the audience you're trying to please and a bunch of other things.

I'm not sure I need to "trust" the views of these people, or that they're on my side, to find them funny. I honestly don't care about their views. Their politics are immaterial. If they're out to smear a candidate and it's funny, it's still funny. Their inner beliefs should be of zero importance.

Again, I didn't say you need to trust *their views.*

As an example of what I'm talking about, consider Sam Morrill. He is clearly in it for the comedy, not to grind an axe.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

(Similarly, women with skill adequate to compete with males should be allowed to do so. If Serena Williams could beat 70% of male tennis players, which I'll bet she could, there ought to be a mixed-sex league where she could do so.)

.

Male pros or all male tennis players? She's already admitted that she'd get beaten by any guy in the top 100.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think you misunderstand what I am saying about trust, which is about creating a relationship with an audience so that the comedian can do material about a controversial subjects. The very same joke can work or fall flat depending on the set and the comedian. The idea that something funny should be funny in almost any context just misses how comedy actually works.



Wouldn't know, don't know his stuff, but if I were looking for comedy I'd go to Netflix, not Fox News.



I think Colbert can be awesome, but I don't watch his show. The late-night talk-show monologue is a tough format, because of the audience you're trying to please and a bunch of other things.



Again, I didn't say you need to trust *their views.*

As an example of what I'm talking about, consider Sam Morrill. He is clearly in it for the comedy, not to grind an axe.

Chapelle has done some really funny stuff on Trump as well. In fact, I'd say he's had the most astute take on Trump's appeal yet.
Chris Rock has also been blatantly political about Trump and at the same time astute and funny as hell.

Stewart, IMO, still has the magic touch. He manages that perfect balance of levity and "This guy was President? He's fucking insane."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Male pros or all male tennis players? She's already admitted that she'd get beaten by any guy in the top 100.

IMO, she's wrong.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Kamala is on Howard Stern tomorrow. In 2018 (or so) Hillary went on and admitted she felt if she she’d have won. Fingers crossed.

I don't think Harris is saying she feels she's going to win. One can take issue with many things about Harris, but hubris isn't one of them.

Anecdotally, here in Purple Country, Harris does not seem to have much support among blue collar voters, Middle Eastern, Latino, Asian, or Indian folks. I deal with lots of these folks and my experience is they are a mix of small business owners (tax voters) and people who resent illegal immigration, perceiving such immigrants as people who cheated a system through which they had to go in order to acquire citizenship. Polls seem to support that.

Harris, OTOH, seems to have hoovered up the upper middle class moderates. She's got a huge chunk of the W-2d professionals and managers.

The shy Trump voters are the business owners who socialize with the professionals and managers at larger corps. They're voting for Trump, but not saying it in mixed company.

It's kind of like the parties switched completely. Trump is so repellant he's gotten a lot of country club republicans to vote against their interests. (Or at least say they will.) That's no small feat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think Harris is saying she feels she's going to win. One can take issue with many things about Harris, but hubris isn't one of them.

She did not claim she will win, you're right. To the contrary. I thought the interview humanized her in the same way the Hillary interview did. But Harris did the interview BEFORE the election. His audience is huge in PA.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think Harris is saying she feels she's going to win. One can take issue with many things about Harris, but hubris isn't one of them.

Anecdotally, here in Purple Country, Harris does not seem to have much support among blue collar voters, Middle Eastern, Latino, Asian, or Indian folks. I deal with lots of these folks and my experience is they are a mix of small business owners (tax voters) and people who resent illegal immigration, perceiving such immigrants as people who cheated a system through which they had to go in order to acquire citizenship. Polls seem to support that.

Harris, OTOH, seems to have hoovered up the upper middle class moderates. She's got a huge chunk of the W-2d professionals and managers.

The shy Trump voters are the business owners who socialize with the professionals and managers at larger corps. They're voting for Trump, but not saying it in mixed company.

It's kind of like the parties switched completely. Trump is so repellant he's gotten a lot of country club republicans to vote against their interests. (Or at least say they will.) That's no small feat.

Small business owners have always been a GOP crowd. There's nothing new about that.