That’s a piece of the lore that I’ve forgotten.

Made dead shot and his daughter black

Well, that specific one has been a push since the movie with Will Smith. Next time they reboot the comics, they’ll probably do it over there.

hardly insignificant

Actually—and if you read the article, the further context reinforces this—he’s saying they weren’t insignificant, and it’s understandable that it would be shocking. It tripped me up the first time I read the sentence as well.

Harley Quinn has only had any lesbian suggestion to her character since the same hacks that ruined it in all the other ways started writing. I mean, take out her terribly executed, unnecessary, generally awful “redemption” arc(s), and the actual character is defined by her romantic and sexual obsession with a man. I think even Poison Ivy used to be less “feminist man hater” and more “pure eco nut.” Doesn’t she flirt with Batman/find him attractive in a lot of her pre-modern/woke appearances?

Terminator? Basically the same deal: two real good ones, then increasingly downhill. Jurassic Park[/World] maybe?

add a lightsaber and gratuitous bouncing titty shots while she rides her horse. I’m out no matter what they do now, fuck them all.

She’s not attractive enough for that.

In his case, it’s more that either “lethn” was always a character and he was doing a bit, or he wasn’t doing a bit, and lethn was him, and he really wrote and talked and thought that way. And if it’s the latter, I simply don’t believe a sperg of that type could maintain an alt without getting into the exact same sort of fights for the exact same sort of reasons, because there was something about him that rendered him fundamentally unable to communicate properly.

He just said a lot of retarded shit and got sick of getting told he was retarded.

I’m not sure he has an alt. If so, he’s good at writing differently.

Is it bad that I’m sort of disappointed Lethn deleted his account just before this all happened.

They made us escalate to death threats and psychological warfare

I don’t believe they receive any notable death threats or “psychological warfare.” A handful, from a handful of people, who have no real intention of taking any action to follow through? Maybe. Enough to even acknowledge unless you’re putting on a victimhood show? No.

Right, that’s the distinction I was thinking of but I forgot the proper labels. My bad.

Maybe with (some of) the original Earth Day stuff when it was less about "OMG GLOBAL WARMING" and more about "let's not pollute our rivers so much." Of course, I'm sure that was also corrupt in its own ways.

I'm not sure I could point to any time when I can say "this movement was definitely fine." What I'm saying is less "this movement was good and became corrupted" and more "I do want some things in place that keep everywhere from becoming smog central."

Environmentalists as they exist now don’t have a point, but at the same time I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water and end up living in Shanghai. I think that’s what u/SparkMandrill83 was going for.

I’m not sure we’re reading the same title. It says that he promised he would, and didn’t.

But still overseen and endorsed by the same editorial board. We happily say “The NYT/CNN/MSNBC/etc.” sucks, and while we also call out individual anchors and writers for sucking in specific ways, it’s understood that each organization as a whole suffers collective failings.

Are you sure? The original formulation of the term sounds like he’s talking about the trustworthiness of a specific source, given how he likens it to an individual continuously lying and uses “the newspaper” rather than “a newspaper.”

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

It’s not necessarily bad to apply the principle everywhere, but strictly speaking, that’s not the phenomenon it refers to.

It sounds like u/BlisteringCold took that to the conclusion of “he’s not reliable,” though. It would only be Gell-Mann Amnesia if he’d failed to make that connection.

I don’t know why that would be true. Nintendo has taken strong legal actions against multiple other, similar projects. Infamously, there’s that one guy that now owes them ten million, and regardless of your stance on piracy/emulation, I think pretty much everyone agrees that was ridiculously harsh.

Why would they offer this guy money instead of coming down hard on him too? Is Brazil that totally lawless about IP or something?

You’re the dumbass who said that when they killed the white women’s families and forced them to marry blacks, it wasn’t sex slavery because the women were married. I don’t feel inclined to listen to you about the racial politics of anything.

I agree that many times they won’t, but to suggest that there aren’t any noticeable losses seems implausible.

See, that’s reasonable, but it also is an acknowledgment that you understand I’m not using the words literally. Why can’t you just say “I understand that cuck is slang for someone who doesn’t hold to their principles or has certain leftist beliefs, but I don’t like that use of it”? Insisting that it doesn’t and can’t mean what it is commonly used to mean is purposefully obtuse.

I would understand an argument of “I think it’s distasteful.” It’s the complete refusal to understand the concept of slang that really throws me off.

If I ask what the hell your problem is, dog, do you intend to put forth that you are neither a canine nor among the damned?

It’s a direct response to an argument put forth in video description you posted:

But how can some forms of matter possess consciousness while others do not? After all, our brains are composed of the same atoms and molecules as the rest of the universe.

Responding to something you posted is hardly “missing the point of the thread.”