Coward actually deleted it too. No surprise that Leftists constantly revise history to only show themselves in positive light, and not the pieces of shit they are.
This level of naive idealism is entirely pointless. It will NEVER happen. The establishment might not allow an unmoderated debate, but at least that's feasible debate. Having a mythical "truly neutral moderator" is wishful thinking.
Stop imagining systems and structures that are built around having a central authority figure. Those roles will NEVER be filled by those pure people you want to imagine into existence. It's an impractical fantasy.
And so you rightfully address that as a form of improper decorum within a debate setting. Why are we relying on a third party to make the arguments on behalf of the debaters? If the debaters cannot handle themselves, that is a failure of the debaters.
Also, weren't you the one that suggested the idea of rigid time limits which is far more susceptible to the abuse of Gish Galloping?
"Fact checking" is explicitly antithetical to the nature of a debate though. The whole point is that both sides are meant to argue for their points and against their opponents. That isn't the role of the moderator, it's the role of the people debating.
There's no kind way of sugar-coating it: stop conceding ground.
Hell, both teams get their own moderators. If we're going to treat these farces like trials, why not basically make it akin to clients with their lawyers? Take away the charade, not play along with it.
All methods have flaws, at least that one is mostly fair.
That said, a crucial flaw and one that is easily exploited in a live debate is the use of the gish gallop method of rapid fire questions/accusations/falsehoods that are difficult to both address in a limited timespan, as well as also fit in time for your own speaking points.
But losing the moderators would be a good move. The fact there's even "fact checkers" is even more ludicrous considering that it's basically enshrining the literal idea of politically correct speech. That in and of itself should be called out as basic pro-establishment abuse of power.
I'm sorry Feig, but I thought this film wasn't for us? I thought that this was for the modern audience? How can it be the fault of people who aren't your audience?
These people love to blame everyone else for their own failure. And it's funny because anyone with any talent can recover from a bad original screening. The Thing, The Shining and Blade Runner are all examples of films that flopped in the box office but recovered after the fact. 2016 GB has never and will never recover. It's a bad movie.
And the fact Feig can't let it go only strengthens the idea that it was meant to be a statement. So when he says:
“It turned the movie into a political statement, as if to say: ‘If you’re pro-women, you’re going to go see this. If you’re not, then …’ I didn’t think it mattered at all that the main characters were women, but people brought a lot of baggage.”
his implication that this film isn't a statement just can't be taken seriously. Because it's clear that it was very much a statement since it still needs to be defended instead of just accepted as a loss.
True, though I think Reddit, Youtube, Facebook and Tiktok are the worst offenders by a large margin.
I always love how forced the whole "sex work is empowering group" is, because it's not even that they try to force the message with others, but with themselves too.
Ask any woman that's "sex worker positive" if they'd date a partner that regularly had sex with a prostitute and just wait for all the excuses they'd provide. They don't think it's normal, they think it's gross but want to "support the sistas" or some shit like that. Because as per usual, it's all about appearances, not about substantive beliefs. And the reality is that if sex work was normal, you'd have zero problem if your partner bought sex, but we all know that they do have a problem with that.
I don't even think it's real. If it reaches the front page of a site like Reddit, it's almost certainly fake/manufactured/manipulated/etc, where some company/organisation is pushing a post with a pre-approved message for other users to see and uncritically accept as what's popular (even though it's propped up almost entirely by bots).
Nearly anyone who says "All X are Y", and is a part of group X, is almost assuredly telling on themselves and trying to make it seem like Y is normal or out of their own control. It is the most definitive form of projection, as they take things they're guilty of and assume everyone similar to them must also be guilty of those things.
There was nothing in the movie for a new audience.
That's the problem Jimmy. There is no "new" audience. It's a load of crap. A massive cope for a washed-up has-been that forgot what made his movies good.
Again, there is no "new" audience. It doesn't exist. And the reason nobody went to see Dark Fate was because you rode on false nostalgia and everyone, fan or otherwise, could smell that turd from a mile away. Having prior leads make cameos isn't a selling point. You still need substance.
You're assuming that their moderation system is broken and not working as intended.
Worst thing about the Capaldi era is that he actually plays a really good Doctor, but it's all wasted with the storyline that focuses on Clara all the time. You end up wading through knee high feces in the hopes you'll get scraps of some good content.
"I probably shouldn't have said that" said the woman who spent the last 4 hours practicing that line.
Does anyone seriously believe anyone with a lifetime career in government is ever genuine? That any of their interactions are anything less than practiced, curated and prepared for?
This whole "I own a gun" thing is EXPLICITLY trying to pander to fudds. Joke is, they were already voting for her. She's gaining no new votes from this, but it is funny.
Kinda funny how they probably don't believe the shit they're spouting, they're just being actually reactionary against leftists and their support of worker rights or something.
I also find it funny at the idea of a job grinding to a halt and being this big burden on others because someone takes a couple days off sick. What happens if you quit? Gonna feel guilty and embarrassed then as well?
Should you also think you're so important that the company would collapse if you were to, God forbid, unexpectedly die? Unless there are single digit employees, that sounds like a company with a terrible structure if it could cease to function with the loss of a single employee for a few days, let alone longer.
Imagine unironically needing to posture that much that you think being sick is a sign of weakness.
Posturing has to be the weakest thing a person can do, and that is pretty damn embarrassing.
The people who think they're the most immune to propaganda are often the ones most susceptible to it.
That's all statism ever is. Doesn't even matter the topic, it's all about getting someone else to do their dirty work for them.
Depends. If I'm writing in cursive as I mostly do, I'll go with a 7 and come back later to cross it. But if I'm writing in print it's mostly 8. Probably why I struggle with writing an X in cursive if 8 is my default.
The fact there is a distinction between blocking and muting is criminal. It should be solely the same thing.
Because I'm fine if you don't want to listen to certain responses. It's not fine to simply be able to prevent anyone from responding to you bullshit.
Then we're at a disagreement.
That's great rhetoric, but it's not the point. Invaders is a term that's easy for people to dismiss because it's intentionally meant to be dramatic. And I agree that they're invaders, but it doesn't accurately define the issue that normal people can understand the difference between. Asylum seekers are victims in their eyes, economic migrants are opportunistic scavengers.
And it's something that smarmy politicians can't fucking deny that these people are actively gaming the system to avoid normal immigration policy. We all know it, but even the people claiming to support immigration reform refuse to state the cold hard truth that these asylum seekers are not seeking asylum, they're seeking migration. And correctly labelling this reality is, in my opinion, the first small step to admitting the truth. If they cannot even call a spade a spade, they're never going to do the right thing. So why should this too little too late stuff even be acknowledged as being too little when it's not even a step in the right direction, but entirely about saving their own skin and nothing else?
The biggest threat to the establishment is an independent people. People that don't need the government are people who won't vote for more government over-reach. Blocking volunteer aid leaves people dependent on the state.