6
LibertyPrimeWasRight 6 points ago +6 / -0

Son Wukong (aka Goku lol)

I thought that character was Chinese, though. Obviously it's spread beyond China and is in Japanese pop culture as well—Goku, as you point out, and others I'm sure—but I don't think it would be appropriate as a semi-historical thing specifically confined to Japan. It would be better to use Susanoo for something like that, wouldn't it?

by Lethn
3
LibertyPrimeWasRight 3 points ago +3 / -0

To a certain degree. That said, there are ways you can fake it; the writer has hours or weeks to solve a problem and can then have a character divine that same solution in a few seconds, for example. You can use a computer to do complex calculations, then have the character perform them mentally. You can consult and research with people that are smarter or more knowledgeable than you, then have you character use their knowledge.

by Lethn
3
LibertyPrimeWasRight 3 points ago +3 / -0

In general, it is harder to write a smart character than a dumb character, because a smart character has to be capable of solving problems in smart ways. If you aren't careful and skilled, it's very easy to either end up with a "smart" character that's actually kind of dumb because he misses solutions and clues and details he should figure out (ex: many episodes of Doctor Who), or a "smart" character that's really just magic (ex: many versions of Sherlock Holmes, basically every scientist in superhero fiction. Also many episodes of Doctor Who).

8
LibertyPrimeWasRight 8 points ago +9 / -1

This is a quote from Steven Moffat about putting black people in Doctor Who.

u/Telia your posts are usually interesting, but you should try to be less of a jpg poster. It wouldn’t have been hard to find a source for this.

12
LibertyPrimeWasRight 12 points ago +12 / -0

Sure, except for the giant clusterfuck we’re talking about that happened just a couple days ago.

1
LibertyPrimeWasRight 1 point ago +1 / -0

That’s a bad compromise. Those are also pretty extreme, permanent things that one wouldn’t wish on an innocent person, and unlike the death penalty, they don’t even prevent the murderer from murdering again, which is the real utility of the penalty in the first place.

2
LibertyPrimeWasRight 2 points ago +2 / -0

Is it? Since the task passing of the death sentence is in the exact same process, it doesn’t change the odds of an incorrect conviction at all. All it does is add uncertainty as to whether that sentence will be carried out, which is a big problem if you get family members like Mollie Tibbetts’ dad. Or in the case of any criminal capable of hiding from or protecting himself from the family members.

3
LibertyPrimeWasRight 3 points ago +3 / -0

But that doesn’t solve the real thing you said you distrust, does it? The government is presumably still determining guilt through trial, it’s just that they’ve outsourced carrying out the sentence.

17
LibertyPrimeWasRight 17 points ago +17 / -0

Why wouldn’t he set shutter speed that high if he could get away with it? The reasons to have a lower shutter speed are as follows:

  1. To allow motion to be blurred—not something you usually want for news photos of a speech, so that’s out

  2. To let more light in in order to increase the exposure. Obviously, the photos don’t look underexposed, so he’s fine there

  3. In order to allow for a sharper depth of field. Again, not a huge concern for news photos, but the focus in the photos seems fine, so as with exposure, no problem there.

The simplest explanation seems likely to be that he sets his shutter speed as he can and likely takes hundreds or even thousands of photos of every event he covers, then uses the most visually striking.

5
LibertyPrimeWasRight 5 points ago +5 / -0

I’m sure there are, but they’re the exception, not the general rule. And they’re certainly not the mold for “Indian tech CEO” in particular.

9
LibertyPrimeWasRight 9 points ago +9 / -0

But is that feasible right now? With Soros DAs, activists on the bench, and BLM-kneeling law enforcement agencies? It’s all well and good to saw we need to lock criminals up—and it’s true—but we also need to use the weapons that are available to reach the point where locking the criminals up is easier. “The mob,” as you put it, is clearly one of those weapons.

3
LibertyPrimeWasRight 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oh yeah, I think I do remember that now.

8
LibertyPrimeWasRight 8 points ago +8 / -0

Did Zendaya perpetrate a hoax I forgot about/missed, or do you just mean low quality in general?

1
LibertyPrimeWasRight 1 point ago +1 / -0

Comments like "it was to many" […] is such an ignorant comment it shows you have no knowledge on the subject

I’m not exactly sure how else one would read this, lol. I know your opinions, so I know that what you mean is “even though you said it happened and it was bad, you didn’t self-flagellate enough and treat it with the reverence it deserves, so I hate you,” (which is kind of obnoxious, really). But what you actually wrote was “it’s extremely ignorant to say too many people died.”

3
LibertyPrimeWasRight 3 points ago +3 / -0

I don't think anyone was insane enough to suggest the random OF girl was involved.

Wait, isn’t this thread about researching her? Why do that if she’s not involved? Did you forget your own topic? Have you been having memory issues? Is this the first sign of early-onset Impzheimer’s?

4
LibertyPrimeWasRight 4 points ago +4 / -0

Wow, she’s extremely unappealing. Who is paying money to see THAT naked? I’d understand more if someone paid money not to.

2
LibertyPrimeWasRight 2 points ago +2 / -0

Okay, but what are you going to do with that? Are you agreeing with Imp, women need to be collectively put through a Nuremberg trial? Are you going MGTOW? Or is it just an observation that gee, a lot of people hold feminist beliefs? Because again, if we’re being honest, the majority of western men are probably also feminists under this definition.

10
LibertyPrimeWasRight 10 points ago +10 / -0

You’re not wrong in saying that those are ultimately feminist ideas, but you’ve actually only expanded on the issue that u/Adamrises was pointing out: your classification is so broad as to be useless (or perhaps even worse, demoralizing). There’s a big difference between “yeah, sure, I assume this is normal and right because that’s what I’ve always been taught and everyone says that means I’m a feminist so I guess I am” and “I am a feminist; I go protest against male domestic violence shelters because they already have enough privilege.”

18
LibertyPrimeWasRight 18 points ago +18 / -0

Yeah, it’s weird. Trump is irrelevant to the outcome. The lever he’s holding doesn’t do anything.

14
LibertyPrimeWasRight 14 points ago +14 / -0

The counterargument would be: who the hell can he pick? It kind of seems like everyone is a compromised backstabbing liar.

2
LibertyPrimeWasRight 2 points ago +2 / -0

Literally on the roof or figuratively on the roof, it's the same deal: maybe that was the PD's responsibility and maybe it wasn't, but either way the Secret Service presumably has responsibility somewhere up the chain to make sure it's being done.

1
LibertyPrimeWasRight 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, but I don’t think anyone here really believes that that’s the case. All of the rest of the federal government is supposed to be neutral too, and it isn’t.

The idea that the director is a DEI hire, and the idea that he Secret Service dropped the ball letting the shooter get his shot off have both been the topic of several threads. Whether that ball dropping was malice or incompetence is still a little debatable, but aside from a couple people sperging that it was actually a pro-Trump false flag, essentially everyone on here is in agreement that the Secret Service is definitely some flavor of messed up.

That leaves just Michelle Khare, and yeah, there’s plenty of reasons you can say she shouldn’t have been allowed to train with them. But going above and beyond “yeah, the Secret Service is some kind of F’d, which we knew from about 15 minutes after this shooting (and probably suspected before)”… there just isn’t enough substance to it for that to support the direction you’re taking it in. It’s just not the bombshell you’re acting like it is.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›