ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
No? Every single launch to date was on a suborbital trajectory. It made it to orbital altitude I guess, but that's not an orbit.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Independent watchdog NGOs routinely declare elections flawed or invalid because of censorship
Do you have an example? I don't really follow election watchdogs, so I never heard of one complaining about censorship, but it would be funny to compare and contrast with western elections.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I think it was "Starship makes it to orbit". Can't remember if it was 5 or 3 years, but have the posts saved somewhere.
While it's looking 50/50 on the first bet, I'm like 90% sure the moon thing isn't isn't happening, unless they pull a switcheroo and it turns out they can do it on Falcon Heavy or something. Starship, according to the official docs, will need something like a dozen refueling launches to go to the moon, and that's the optimistic scenario.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Yay, I love bets! $50?
And just to be clear we're talking "back to the moon on Starship", or at the very least one of SpaceX' rockets, right?
Also: this will either need to be a" donate to charoty " type bet, or we'll need to find a convenient way to send money anonymously.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I don't know how to compare these, when the books for one are public, and for the other are not.
And if it's so much cheaper, where is the new era of space exploration? Weren't we supposed to be well on our way back to the Moon by now? Do you think we'll get there any time soon?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I think it's wrong to call that a "lucky" catch, but at the same time - so where is the new era of space exploration? Wasn't Falcon 9 already supposed be rapidly reusable? You're not worried that they haven't bothered putting even dummy cargo on the upper stage? Or the fact that they were supposed to be half way to the moon by now?
It seems from animal models that growth hormone increases growth speed but not where you end up? Not sure why you hope this is a silver bullet. People are probably dismissive because it doesn't seem to be something that is currently possible.
I never got around to reading up on it, but apparently you don't need to look at animal models, as trying to control human height with hormones is a thing that actually happened IRL. If you want a summary, and don't mind reading someone with an axe to grind, Mia Hughes wrote a chapter on it in the WPATH Files (it starts at the bottom of the page: "Engineering Children’s Height With Hormones").
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Correct!
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
They were remarkably impartial. Every single user was getting the exact same amount, regardless of the their politics, or any other factor for that matter.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Well, it's not the Mongolians either.
I thought "Hallow" basically means "Saint" / "Holy"?
Yeah, I do.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Where do you think it came from to my country? Mongolia?
You can have it. I'm not American, and just want you to stop shoving it where it doesn't belong.
I also don't quite remember saying the above quote. I'm not one for "uniting all of us".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
+1
I absolutely hate Halloween. Reject Halloween, RETVRN to All Hallow's Day.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Last week it was my time turn to get knocked out by the flu, so I didn't get anything done. This week, I have some major work-related activities, that will likely get in the way of any hobby stuff. Hopefully things will calm down during the weekend.
@Southkraut, how are you doing? Didn't try it out yet, but there does indeed seem to be some buzz around Redot.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
No, it's not an important part of my argument, though I think reactiveness does describe a lot of these incidents.
Then that's kind of lame. What's the point of bringing up the reactive nature of something, if proving it's not actually reactive won't change your mind in any significant way?
and indeed, the people screaming about "Woke Disney" probably aren't
They don't have to be representative to be right about why Disney's stuff fails to resonate with wider audiences.
Since we keep going back and forth about exactly what the other person is claiming, here's my claim
This is all fine, except, as you noted, it's just a claim. You shouldn't get call disagreement with this claim "ridiculous", and your portrayal of yourself as the more moderate and gracious, further down the chain, is in especially poor taste given your behavior.
They also like to make money. I submit they like to make money more than they like being woke.
This would be the crux of the disagreement. If this was true, we would routinely be seeing them sacrificing wokeness, for money, not the other way around. Sure, they need money, and there's a boundary on how much losses they can tolerate, but they're clearly willing to tolerate monetary losses, if it means more wokeness.
There might be an element of incompetence, in that they underestimate how much a given movie release will cost them, but the lack of significant colourse correction shows that they're not too bothered about it, this showing that they don't necessarily like to make money more that they like being woke.
Additionally, I think most of the people involved in making these things genuinely believe they are making a good product.
Yeah, but they think that what makes it good is the wokeness. And while I can't tell what's going on in their minds, my guess is that even when they think it's good, they are aware it's not going to be that popular, or a moneymaker.
Is that correct?
I already contradicted enough of the points you raised, that you should know that it isn't.
I already pointed out that "Oh, you liked that movie? Fuck you." is just one of the possibilities, and "made with little or no thought to profit" is a return to the kind of binary thinking I already criticized.
And that the money men signed off on this, because they were okay with shitty virtue-signaling that doesn't make money.
Whether these money men exist in the way you are implying, and if they do, do they have all that much influence over the creative process, is an open question.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Meanwhile, an Apache helicopter just wrecked a distribution center in Pine Spruce (Spruce Pine?),
While it may be sexually identifying as one, I don't think that's an attack helicopter.
(Sorry to make light of this, the news popping up have been rather horrifying for me as well, even with no connection to the US, but I can't resist autistic nitpicking and a bad pun).
There are a very small number of cases of kids claiming to be trans and being taken away from parents who don’t ‘affirm’. These cases seem to have other, actual, child abuse going on
I agree that the number is small, but how are you getting the idea that there was other abuse in these cases?
but I’ll concede that it’s possibly a legitimate danger to lose a trans child for being opposed to transgenderism
California was one step away from legally mandating that possibility. What makes you think that non-affirming = abuse is not a popular belief among social workers?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Obviously I do not think anyone literally burns money (I dunno, is making cigars out of $100 bills still a thing)?
And I'm obviously not accusing you of it, but you did say anything short of Hollywood going 100% "damn the money, fuck the chuds" will not convince you of being wrong. And if you were also figurative with "we'd see nothing but woke replacements" then you just haven't answered my question.
I do think your claim amounts to people willing to knowingly and intentionally waste millions of dollars in their industry making a shit product just to piss off people they don't like.
I'm not making a claim on what exactly is their higher goal. Maybe it's "pissing off people they don't like" or maybe it's "fighting fascisism / racism / toxic masculinity", maybe they think they're educating the backwards hicks in the public and helping them become more advanced... it could be a ton of different things other than maximizing profit.
Your evidence that this is a common practice - standard procedure in Hollywood even - is some actors and writers saying snarky things when told their product is shit.
You keep claiming they're saying these things only in response to be told their product is shit, is this an important part for your argument, or are you just trying to portray me as unreasonable? I'm not exactly keeping a catalogue of these things, but I'm pretty sure I could find at least a few of these kind of statements made before a movie was even released.
The other part of the evidence is the doubling-, trippling-, and quadroupling-down on a failing strategy. If Hollywood was following the business strategy of throwing spaghetti at the wall, and seeing what sticks, you could say they are interested in profits, but unsuccessful in generating them. But what they're doing instead is taking stuff that already was successful, and subverting it to the purposes of their ideology. If this was primarily about money, you'd think they'd try something different out of sheer frustration.
I can't help you when you make wild and ridiculous leaps of logic like this.
I would like to once again ask why you think it's ok to for you to call anyone that disagrees with you "ridiculous", while providing zero evidence yourself?
Can you show me one unambiguous example
Can you answer my question before asking I answer yours?
That is, a major production that was made (by the admission of someone big enough to be credibly responsible) for the purposes of saying fuck you to the fans and without any consideration for being monetarily successful?
Well again, "fuck you to the fans and without any consideration for being monetarily successful" is not a claim I made, it's your portrayal of my views for the purpose of making me look ridiculous. In any case I could probably satisfy the first part of the requirement, but the latter one will admittedly be trickier. However, I don't the latter requirement is reasonable. It's like saying only confessing attempted murderers should be convicted.
I cannot prove what is in the hearts of Hollywood producers. Neither can you. So we can both only guess,
Ok, good! We can start a reasonable conversation from here.
and my claim is based on what motivates most normal human beings (especially amoral and greedy ones); your claim is based on assuming that they are alien-like caricatures.
... oh ...
Ok. Well, no. I do not think they are alien-like caricatures, and if I wanted to, I could make your portrayal of them look just as unreasonable, but I don't think it would be very productive.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
If I were wrong about this, we'd see nothing but woke replacements and writers and directors being overt about their intentions, no retrenchments or cancellations by studios when a property fails to earn, and massively budgeted productions like "Captain America: Gay As You Want To Be."
I'd say that if you think that "throwing all their money into a bonfire and basking at the flames as it all burns" is not only a reasonable standard, but apparently the bare minimum, for the claim "they are not primarily motivated by profit", I think you are the one being hyperbolic and irrational, which makes your claims of projection extra-ironic.
Is there any field where you hold yourself to this standard? To me it looks like the same type of argument as "trans women aren't winning at every competition, so it's not a problem they're competing with women" that Darwin used on you once.
When you get to the level of big Hollywood moneymaking, you care more about money than whether you pissed off some incels on Twitter.
This claim is trotted out regularly as if it's evidence in itself, but it has literally no backing.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I think money is the greater motivator,
That's fine, it's dismissing other possibilities as ridiculous that I'm taking an issue with (also pretty sure it's in violation of a rule or two, but whatever).
and when I say status, I mean the status that comes from producing a moneymaker and award winner
As others pointed out, awards are handed out internally by the industry itself.
If you think the "status" they seek is the status of winning the approval of their woke friends who think it's great that they produced a massively expensive disaster just to raised a middle finger to their enemies, yes, I will act like the people claiming that are being ridiculous.
Cool, so tell me how would the world look different if you were wrong about this?
A lot of actors, directors, and producers have had their careers crippled with a massive failure.
I'm saying we'd be seeing even more of that. We'd also be seeing very different types of it. For example it would take a lot more to fire someone like Gina Carano, and a lot less to fire someone like Kathleen Kennedy.
Yes, but an actor or writer throwing a fit on Twitter over criticism and saying things like that is not the same as explicitly advertising a movie as "Not for you."
I don't think these sort of declarations tend to be made after the movie has bombed.
She is not a studio spokeswoman and I am very confident that the producers of The Acolyte did not have "Make white people cry (and lose money)" as their goal.
Based on what? Why do you get to be "very confident" on absolutely no evidence, while declaring anybody who disagrees with you is ridiculous?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
My local bar? These places are not hard to find. Don't know how it would help to live there, though.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Their primary motivation is profit and status
If you're going to say that there are (at least) two primary motivations, I don't think you should get to act like people claiming one of them has greater primacy than the other are being ridiculous.
and for the money people behind the scenes, it's profit.
I'd expect far more people figuratively flying out office windows, if that was the case.
They care a lot less about culture war than you do.
I don't think I care about it enough to lose hundreds of millions of dollars over it, they do.
It's a very Current Year thing for you to read every box office failure as an intentional devious scheme by the studios to set money on fire just because they hate you.
Is it ok if I just read the ones explicitly advertised as "this movie wasn't made for chuds like you!" as it? (Not sure if Joker 2 would qualify, since I checked out from Hollyeood a while ago).
I think the more sinister conspiratorial nonsense - that the studios literally don't care about making a profit (!!) and deliberately did this as a "humiliation ritual" just to punish the audience, whom they hate - is ridiculous and a sign of how far down a rabbithole this sort of "THEY are out to get you" thinking can take you.
If at this point "studios don't care about making profit" is something that strikes you as ridiculous and conspiratorial, you're basically saying no amount of evidence will convince you. There is absolutely no way Hollywood looks the way it looks like right now, if their primary motivation is profit.
Huh, the only comments on it that I can find right now are this one in response to you, and this one in response to @self_made_human. I swear I shook hands with both of you on something like 50 USD.
Unless we made the actual bet later, it seems like there's 2 years left.
More options
Context Copy link