I wonder why the comparison to the Clinton Foundation is never made by these brainlets. That was an overt and long running (multiple decades) open solicitation of foreign donation money with the implicit promise of presidential access. I'm old enough to remember that Bill Clinton's campaign was backed heavily by Chinese money which was a curiosity at the time. The media only cared to report on it for about a weekend, then it was back to "Iraq Iraq Iraq". Hilary's solicitation of donations continued all through the Bush-43 and Obama years, under the promise that anyone giving large sums to her 'family charity' was buying access to the future Queen-President and favors would be returned.
Nothing Trump has ever done comes anywhere near that. They have a fantasy in their heads that Trump wanted to invest in Moscow real-estate? That's... such small ball compared to this, and it isn't even based on any observable facts, its just a belief. This is overt, proven, and far far worse on the face.
On the last point, since when has maintaining any semblance of through-line stopped them from adapting a series? They'll have their Trump and make the other guy Turbo-Trump or something. Nothing will make sense, and every important idea will be destroyed, but they'll do it anyway.
No one currently in showbusiness cares about making a good product at all.
The problem with Catholics is that they have always had the institutional vice of wanting to matter politically. That makes many of them (especially in leadership) sacrifice on important issues when it comes to saving public face or catering to the zeitgeist of the day. And looking at the current Pope... does indeed not inspire confidence.
It is also a deflection of the fact that they themselves had heavy hand in the creation of those inner city shit-holes. Who can protest their easily provable failures if those same 'circumstances' can be attributed to an underclass we are supposed to sympathize with. "That's black culture, you have to change yourself not them." Meanwhile no black person would adopt a shitty gangland ghetto wasteland as "cultural," until recently. Now you have bad actors (entertainment celebrities, and intentional agitators) proclaiming the same. "This IS black culture, whitey has to leave!"
So the left have engineered a reality, where the people they targeted and destroyed are now happily and fervently BEGGING for segregation so they can keep their shitty ghettos because they're so proud of them suddenly. What a diabolical and shameful display.
And if you need to ask why, there are many reasons, but the simplest is: Permanent Underclass => Guaranteed Voting Bloc => Elections Meaningless => Permanent Power => "Communist Utopia"
The lead is buried in the article where the writer just whinges endlessly on how that wasn't "Real Feminism" anyway. I didn't finish reading it.
Seems to be implying that because it was propaganda then we shouldn't be disillusioned by the fakeness of it. Which sounds like something a propagandist would say when caught... >_>
I appreciate the take. I honestly find it relieving to hear that this movie is so nonsensical and haphazard. The last thing the world needs is some kind of 'defensible' wackado edgy boundary shifting cultural rally point. Instead we have another example of shit being elevated "simply because". Because the creator is a woman, muslim, French... then it must be the most cultured piece of entertainment ever created.
We laugh "but was it a transgender black muslim woman in a wheelchair" as the effective pinnacle of the oppression stack that somehow generates the only culture we're allowed to consume, but this movie ticks so many of those boxes WHILE being pedo-wank weirdness. Good! This will make everyone sick and set them back for their egotistical pushing of objective garbage.
Bravo, my cultural overlords! Do it again!
The 'hoax' aspect always was schizophrenic hype. "Hug and kiss a hobo in chinatown to prove you're not a racist like Trump," followed two days later by "we're all going to die multiple times somehow and its Trump's fault!" The hoax is the transparent attempt to fuck the country up enough to unseat a popular president they hate.
I messaged to get back in, but incase mod-messaging is borked or whatever, I'm making a comment here. I don't know if I have any links to my comments, nothing shows up in my profile. I'm "GunnerGuyven" there. (second time trying to edit this... hmm)
I made this comment elsewhere on this. Reposting here cause why not
The problem here is that this person starts at the wrong conclusion and works backwards into a "what is evil" argument. She doesn't know what the actual problem is because she is a willing part of it. Instead she blames the many many faults and failings on capitalism.
Here is the problem that you are blind to, Ariana:
MSNBC isn't seeking profit, except secondarily within their mandate. They are seeking audience with a demographic they are attempting to cultivate. MSNBC starts with a desired outcome and tries to fit a profit model into that, not the other way around. It is not capitalism that you are seeing.
You look at the elevating of radical thought as a kind of ratings grab, without noticing that it is extremely unpopular outside of the audience bubble your network is doggedly serving that barely exists. There is a reason that MSNBC has always competed for 4th fiddle in the news ratings, and only now sees some growth thanks to the heat-death of CNN.
It is very telling that you can't see this and instead fall back onto a tired argument of "commercial interests are killing us". The reason is, you are fully on-board and happy with the core mandate of the network, and you're rationalizing against seeing it fail. You think you have the answer for how to best get propaganda across, but you refuse to admit that it is unpalatable propaganda you're hawking so that when it gets muddied or sidelined you think something impure and evil has happened. "This damn capitalist system" you rage impotently.
MSNBC and you were made for each other. Your complaints are as empty and vapid as your worldview that has blinded you to reality. I wonder if the network will feel your loss, because True Believers like you are, honestly, quite cheap and easy to replace.
I've been saying exactly this for many years, so I'm in full agreement. But I must say the idea of bundling micropayments with traffic is one I hadn't considered.
This is very interesting because it incentivizes network development and traffic handling. At the packet level you get resource contention based on the value the sender is placing, which goes straight into the node-manager's bank.
This bypasses the problem posed by the solutions that big actors like Google and Netflix have taken, where they invest directly into infrastructure and then get to (try to) behave like they own it in perpetuity. It's a sticky problem because they should be compensated well for creating a network where before there was something shitty or nothing at all.
But this solution of inverting the bandwidth problem from being a pure cost to a cost-benefit balance (because of its intrinsic value thanks to bundling value with data) means that there is a natural incentive to service traffic instead of a natural disincentive requiring compulsion to see the traffic through.
I like this concept very much. And I'm surprised also that it never occurred to me. It's a smart, simple, answer to the problem of incentive in a pure resource-drain system like network traffic service.
"The characters are not responsible" for what I as a writer wrote them doing.
A fictional character breaking the fourth wall to say "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way," works because the fictional character exists in a context where they are influenced by their creators (the artists and writers). The converse is not true, so apologizing or excusing the character for being depicted is not something a creator can do, unless he believes his creation is real and has a soul. "I'm sorry for making a mistake in storytelling" is legitimate "please forgive Batman, he did not hit her of his own volition" is... crossing into territory that can no longer be called 'sane'.
I think the true 'Islamophobes' are those who have an excessive and outlandish response to being confronted with a mere image of Muhammad. Does that fit the term better?
Show a man a picture and he will behead you. Sounds like a mental derangement 'phobia' or some kind to me.