plural
1yr ago
I suspect most people don't fully understand problems like this and don't follow through with the thought process that everyone lives if they take red. This could be because they're not really giving a lot of thought to the question itself and are just looking at a choice between two answers, one I live, the other I might live but I'm helping other people live. If the text of the choice for red included the part that everyone also lives if they all take red the answers might end up different.
Also, there's too much baggage around red, blue and specifically around a question that involves a red and blue pill. You're just asking for people to pick an ideological side without thinking for many people not wanting to be associated with the red pill when they're not thinking too hard about it and it appears to represent only naked self-interest.
plural
1yr ago
Well, I know that it's not apples to apples because of inertia and expectations but, right now, top level threads get much less engagement and very little debate compared to top level comments in the cw thread. And I still view being buried as a positive thing for broader engagement. Long endless threads on particular topics become dominated by whoever has the biggest hobby-horse investment in the topic and there's just endless multi-quotes between people arguing about nigh useless minutiae that a casual debater/observer has no interest in. Refreshing the topic constantly allows it to return to a state of wider focus. This is just my experience with forums and "general threads".
plural
1yr ago
The extra click is crucial for participation and being exposed to ideas you would normally avoid. In threads the title so important and half the time that title seems either like clickbait or something I'm not interested in or indecipherable without clicking to clarify. Going in and out of threads I may be interested in seems just like a worse version of what's done now. As someone else said when this was brought up before you end up reading things you never would before because they're all in one thread as top level comments. And I also think it promotes participation because it ends up taking the heat off of a top-level comment rather than a top level thread there might not be any real distinction but being buried in a 1000 other comments when people tear your ideas apart is a lot more comfortable than that failure existing on its own. I think burying old ideas weekly helps everyone, the deeper comments go the more angry and snipey they get and forcing a new topic is a great cooling method for that, I think the weekend and switching off to the friday fun thread then small scale questions thread helps with that as well.
The idea also segregates all topics. Some people might see that as a good thing but it's just an exercise in people radicalizing themselves. I can see dissenters becoming fewer and fewer as each separate single-interest topic is dominated by those that have a lot of interest in something. People will start avoiding threads started by users they don't like and it'll become even more about people who just agree with each other. And you lose that "there's someone wrong on the internet! this won't stand." drive where you see something that you think or know is wrong and feel compelled to correct them. A top level thread usually presents no facts or real ideas in its title and you lose that possible drive. Every new topic about people's specific bugbears will just be dominated by those people and become a "HBD general" or "AI threat general" or "Immigration general" if people think that the majority opinion dominates and destroys minority opinions now then it would only get worse.
It also creates an idea of staying-on-topic that limits conversation. You can go into a top level comment about the economy and then have people start talking about AI safety two comments deep and it feels normal and fine to switch to that and even if it would be alright otherwise you limit how many people are going to participate in that topic-switch or even know its there.
I do agree that it sucks if you want to post and respond to serious topics on the weekend but that could be fixed by staggering the thread's replacement every few weeks or so but otherwise I think thread level topics will just end up in worse quality probably worse engagement and more personally it would "fuck my shit up" with regard to how I consume what's on this site with all the extra navigation and clicking that it would require.
plural
1yr ago
Your mod warning might be right, but this post is an example of being a bad mod. You mocked three users to various degrees of uncharitability and antagonism and then warned them when you could have just warned them. And I'm not saying you need to be a robot or in deference to other posters all the time, just you know, mod comment gooder.
plural
1yr ago
I think Kanye West summed it up pretty well for me, "Money isn't everything, not having it is."
plural
1yr ago
It's internally cohesive. Everyone in it talks like Shakespeare characters. Nobody actually talked like they do in Deadwood, it's anachronistic in many ways in that regard but it's internally cohesive because everyone talks that way in the show. This kind of nitpicking is like when people call Joss Whedon or Tarantino dialogue bad because it's unrealistic. Maybe it's bad but not because it's unrealistic. You have to allow for style in dialogue at some point or else everything is going to be an Altman/Mumblecore soup.
plural
1yr ago
Length is sometimes a problem but readability often goes down with length as well and in turn that becomes a bigger problem. More paragraphs, more linebreaks, breaking down lists that might be in paragraph form into a numbered/dots list with a new line for each item: sure we all write too much, except maybe the_nybbler, but sometimes the length is necessary and with that in mind I think things can be long without being unreadably long.
plural
1yr ago
I have no idea why you've gone into multi-quote argument failure mode. I mostly agree with you and just think it's still not unlikely that they manipulated data because I'm biased that way and I've explained why.
plural
1yr ago
I feel like it's a lost cause at this point. Review-bombing is probably real, fake, and irrelevant all at the same time. I say irrelevant because once a review-bombing has been deemed to happen all reviews become tainted because let's assume it's all natural both ways, people will still counter-review bomb to say something is great for culture war reasons or pretend to be the enemy and strawman their position. I'm beginning to believe the latter is very likely, if not predestined, to happen in once a review-bomb starts.
This is just a problem for aggregation and numbers. There are still usually reviews by people who have valid criticisms and praise. The review bomb basically just renders the number meaningless and anything with too much negativity or praise becomes much harder to believe as real. So, maybe people just read reviewers whose opinions they already trust to not be contaminated by playing a culture war game with review scores. I'm sure some exist.
plural
1yr ago
Of course, if you assume that Rottentomatoes is not manipulating any data than the data comes back to show exactly what they're telling you. But I was suggesting that they were secretly weighting the score which may seem conspiracy nutty but that's the entire point of looking at it and thinking "this seems strange, I don't buy it." I'm not going to say nobody believes that the score matches what the website shows but I believe most people who think things might be being manipulated think that a portion of negative reviews are being excluded outside of their own verification system because it's socially/politically in their interest to do so for any number of reasons. There's been so many instances of things being protected from false reviews in the past few years that I find it hard to believe without any hint of doubt that the 95% reflects reality.
Protecting TV shows/videogames/movies from review-bombing for political reasons is considered just what a good/respectable company does these days. In the same way that allowing people to talk about certain risque things or have certain opinions isn't allowed, saying "I didn't like this product because I don't like its political message" is only allowed in one direction and if it's the wrong direction (right slanted) then that is deemed bad and cracked down on in some way by changing how the reviews work (netflix), limiting reviews affecting scores when a lot of reviews happen at once (steam), verifying reviews in some way (rottentomatoes), all these things only exist because of review-bombing for political/culture war reasons. It's clear that review-bombing does happen by people who haven't consumed the media but even in cases where money is confirmed to have changed hands (steam) they still have protections for review-bombing because there are reasons for reviews that are deemed invalid. It seems easy for a website like Rottentomatoes to just turn off commentless zero star reviews for something even if it's been "verified" (I put a quotes because I don't know how their verification works). It's relatively conspiratorial and I don't necessarily believe it 100% but it doesn't strike me as crazy outlandish to do.
I also would find it easy to believe that a pr company would manufacture bad user reviews for something like metacritic to take a 5.0 down to a 2.0 and flood it with reviews specifically targeting the woke angle of something to completely erase the perceived value of user reviews that are bad or middling. I said in another post that I just don't trust rottentomatoes in the same way I don't trust wikipedia for anything political. Manipulation is just too easy even discounting RT doing it themselves. There are plenty of people that would give a 5/10 a 6/10 purely for culture war reasons and vice versa. But given the critic reviews, genre-fatigue (I guess live action remakes are maybe a genre), the baked-in culture war angle from both sides(I've seen three articles on deadline about how it sets a bad example for women, erases black slavery, and appropriates drag culture) I still find it hard to believe that it sits at 95%. I didn't say impossible, just hard to believe.
plural
1yr ago
Speaking of apples to oranges comparisons.
Rottentomatoes critic scores before a certain era and for certain products are absolutely not useful because they have so few reviews compared to anything recent and until streaming there were very few serious about making reviews for direct-to-dvd movies. Black Stallion Returns has 5 critic reviews. The Little Mermaid II has 6 critic reviews (and one of them is a duplicate). I don't see how you can take the comparison between thousands of user reviews seriously with that discrepancy.
Not to mention the fact that reviews for older movies are almost never going to draw review-bombing, and almost always going to have people leaving a less critical review of something older because it was older, because their nostalgia, because if they thought it was middling they wouldn't care to make a review for it. Hype, marketing, cultural issues (warring or not) probably skew reviews for modern things in ways that I have a hard time believing are going to reflect accurately back when examining 40 year old movies or direct-to-dvd sequels that came out in 2000.
A better comparison would be to take a movie without controversy, to my knowledge that fits in a similar mold. Look at The Lion King(2019) 52% critic and 85% audience and Aladdin (2019) with a 48% critic and 95% audience which would seem to suggest along with Beauty and the Beast that verified audience percentages make disney movies review proof for audiences. Then again there's Dumbo (2019) 46% critic and 48% audience, Mulan (2020) 78% critic and 46% audience, Lady and the Tramp (2019) 66% critic, 50% audience and finally, Pinnochio (2022) 29% critic and 27% audience. If IMDB has admitted they had to weight the score of The Little Mermaid to combat review bombing and rottentomatoes is releasing a 95% with no comment, I find it hard to believe. Not impossible taking into account something like Aladdin, but still hard to believe.
plural
1yr ago
You're not the first to notice. It seems like IMDB already weighted scores because of review-bombing. On IMDB, even weighted, it's at 7.2. And metacritic's score of 2.2 seems more reflective of what review-bombing might look like, so I'd bet Rottentomatoes put in some extra protections against review-bombing, above and beyond just weighting the score like IMDB. It seems like Rottentomatoes user scores are like Wikipedia articles, if it's political I wouldn't trust it implicitly.
plural
1yr ago
Ignoring the low-effort rule, we're casual here. "If I had more time I would have written a shorter letter." It takes a lot of unnecessary effort to be very succinct sometimes and most people just can't do it naturally, so I'll forgive some bloviating because it's a post on a discussion board that I'm reading for free.
plural
1yr ago
This hit home for me. The kindle fire volume slider/buttons go like this 0->30%->45%->60%->75%->90%->100%. Apparently you have to root it to get access to changing the volume in steps that don't skip the first 30 and don't go 15 at a time.
plural
1yr ago
They actually renewed it and then spent 5 million dollars on pre-production of the second season and then cancelled it. I mean it's not HBOmax renewing Minx and filming the entire second season and then cancelling it but it's clearly an executive decision-making problem. I wouldn't call any show that they've ever made an organic "hit" besides The Boys.
If you look at the Nielsen weeklies of time watched and compare A League of Their Own to Reacher it's probable that the entirety of minutes watched up until for for A League of Their Own was probably equal to the first couple weeks of Reacher. And Reacher is a mild hit for Amazon and Amazon in general has a much lower bar for being a hit than Netflix.
For a comparison Reacher had around 1500 million minutes watched in its first week and A League of the Their Own had around 500 million minutes. Reacher stayed on the charts for a couple more weeks but League was gone after its initial appearance.
Another, more sad comparison is that Friends/Seinfield/The Big Bang Theory/Gilmore Girls/Supernatural routinely get around 500 million minutes weekly, they pop in and out of the top ten but they're pretty consistent and usually come back. For whatever reason the show failed spectacularly but nobody noticed because nobody probably knew it existed (a wonder how that works).
Though all of this is moot. A League of Their Own is a clout chasing prestige show made to show off diversity or be artistic and maybe nab awards. It's competition is never going to be Reacher or Jack Ryan but maybe something like the Night Sky which premiered even lower than League and was promptly cancelled. It seems pretty clear that Amazon, like every other network and streamer makes a few clout/award shows and doesn't stick with them if they're not successful.
The fact that they're getting a second season and complaining about it is just a stupid way to bite the hand that feeds. Aside from writing for the Onion, and Movie 43 Will Graham has two episodes on a sitcom for Bravo which I'd never heard of and wasn't aware that Bravo made sitcoms, and his other two shows were both Amazon shows. The guy wrote for the Amazon show Alpha House, executive produced and wrote for Mozart in the Jungle and then created and wrote for A League of Their Own. And then he shits on Amazon, I hope that shield of saying "diversity" can keep them from noticing/remembering this when they want to offer him another show to make. It's funny how it's the white guy complaining about this and the other creator who has a career outside of that show isn't instigating diversity investigations into Amazon because her show was only renewed for a second and final season.
I'm not disagreeing that it is probably not ethnic. But I don't the think the majority of people making claims that Trump was a fascist or a Nazi make any distinction between the two. It works the same way with people who call the other side communists and socialists. They're just bad words for people they disagree with.
plural
1yr ago
Maybe your take is correct but I still think the ending makes the AI seem stupid or at the very least incredibly myopic.
plural
1yr ago
At least in the very recent era of these IPs you can look at it like this: The people making Dune were trying to adapt the book of Dune. The people making the new Lord of the Rings show were trying to write their own prequel they made up and couldn't include anything from the Silmarillion.
plural
1yr ago
My problem with Ex Machina is the ending. It makes the AI seem stupid. It has no idea where the helicopter will go, how long it will take to get there, and could have easily kept manipulating the protagonist until it was safely away and set up in a place where it could charge or a place to betray the protagonist later and escape in a world that has far less variables. I think it just threw away logic for a "Yaas Queen Slay" ending. But to me that's what happens at the end of almost any Alex Garland movie/tv show. Not necessarily about the queen slaying but about throwing away logic for an emotional payoff that trips all over the logical parts that came before. And I really like Alex Garland but I feel like he's just an ending stumbler.
plural
1yr ago
We don't need to figure anything out, it's clearly not just values because this post is bothersome to me on its face because it has very little context, is continuing an argument but also ignoring the argument to deflect disagreements as ad hoc or something, I'm not even sure because you're making vague insinuations here that I also can't parse even after realizing who you are and what it is you're talking about.
We don't live inside your brain and the way this was posted doesn't make that apparent. So, yes, clearly there are problems beyond just disagreeing with your values. But does this matter? Even understanding this post I'm left wondering what you're even trying to do here. Are you posting this because you want the answer? Because I'm sure you can strike a nerve and get more agitated responses than usual depending on the topic but there's clearly something more than that and it's not even the previous posts that made it clear but it's this post. Whatever drove you to make this post and to keep it so vague as if we all know about you and your arguments is probably partly the reason why people are reacting harsher than you think they should to you.
So, maybe think about why this post exists, why it needed to be made so long after those arguments have basically died, why you didn't link to any of the quotes or preface with what it is you were arguing about. And I know it's not fair because sometimes your personal overton window bugbear will bug other people immensely more than their's would you but if you want to get people to react less aggressive or dismissive toward you the first step is to be conscientious in general and avoid examples of how people phrase things as consensus building or culture warring, even if you disagree the examples you'd get from a search might just help you understand what to avoid when framing your position or just, in general, constructing something that someone else is going to read. Like I said before, we're not in your brain and we don't have your brain. But don't treat us like we're stupid even if we are.
plural
1yr ago
The Good Doctor introduced a doctor last year that is heavily religious (Christian) and it's honestly her most positive trait and they introduced a love interest for her that is also deeply religious. Maybe this is an import storyline from the Korean version, I don't know. But the two characters are almost universally supposed to be portrayed as positive (the girl is also as woke as one can be and still be a Christian). Though every character in the show is, I suppose, presented in a positive light. One of the last few episodes the female christian talks about how she's waiting to have sex for marriage. This is (2021-2023).
The Good Fight, probably in the running for the wokest show to ever exist had Andre Braugher come in after Delroy Lindo left and his character was extremely Christian, kind, and entertaining but because of those things all the other characters didn't believe that he was genuine at all and thought he was a phoney who was scheming but he really wasn't, exposing their own bias and this was (2021-2022). Though he and the female character above are both black they are genuinely presented as good people and good Christians. But there's also Jamie from Outlander at least up until the latest season in 2022 who you could say it doesn't count because of the era he lives in but considering his life and circumstances it wouldn't be strange for them to make him not Christian but he remains that way (though the most recent antagonist was a more devout Christian so maybe that's a wash).
There's also the Young Pope (2016) and The New Pope (2020) and even through all the characters foibles in it, almost everyone, even the scheming ones, are still fundamentally good people. At least the people portrayed as religious.
It made me think of how much of a kind of tropey character Shepherd Book actually was at the time because I remember so many shows that would have a solidly sound and humanistic moral center of the show be a pastor or extremely religious character. The Simpsons (which ended in season 11), Oz, The X-Files, and (going back to Andre Braugher) Homicide: Life on the Street. Recently that trope has kind of gone away and I feel like the amount of characters who are good and almost solely as a shorthand for that are made religious is still pretty high but the amount of people that are evil and also religious has probably skyrocketed, I blame horror.
An interesting note to the OP is a trans character played by a trans actor in Big Sky that was part of the main cast was just silently written out. Maybe that is an adjustment for the audience or maybe it's just coincidence.
plural
1yr ago
It's possible but I think it's also possible that the culture-war could've played a role in the judge's decision to throw the cases out. Part of what the judge says is that there was a valid reason to cover Sandmann because the video was "of great public interest". It's like a cito-genesis blank check for the media to just call out and cover whomever they want because they have enough sway to make anything "of great public interest." A bunch of reporters share a video between each other and stir a huge outrage and then cover it in the real media based on the outrage they stirred up. Anyway, I've yet to see anything from anyone about how CNN and Wapo's coverage was substantially different and I find it hard not to be cynical.
plural
1yr ago
I remember this too and it being one of the things that actually was a good swaying argument to me about someone using HRT to treat their dysmorphia. I used to listen to Loveline a lot and Dr Drew would talk with people who would say transgenderism is people being sickos and he would talk about how there were studies showing mri images of a patient's brain before and after hormone therapy and how the HRT would change the brain from showing abnormal function to normal function after they started taking the hormones. I think it being a medical condition garnered a lot of sympathy for transgender people that they still want to keep while also denying that it's a medical condition that requires treatment, while they get treated, and I think they lost a lot of sympathy from people that can remember the before times.
The thing is, I'm not even sure this is mainly a bad faith thing. I've encountered several times, when talking about neologisms with people, that they simply don't remember things but the present and that knowledge just becomes always. I remember when "binge-watching" became a popular term and I was talking with someone about how it's weird how the term suddenly came into existence along with the topic as if we hadn't said the word "marathoning" before to mean the same thing. They were the same age as me and had no idea that it was called marathoning and made me doubt myself. I had an almost identical conversation about the term "lowkey" with someone who said it had meant what it does now in the 90s because that's what it always meant.
I think about 1984 and "always being at war with Eurasia" and maybe about how you don't have to actually rewrite history because nobody bothers (or maybe can or cares) to remember it anyway.
plural
1yr ago
I'm not sure your first example works as a pure counter-argument since they settled before the case went to court but the rest that waited got their cases thrown out. Though, it's possible CNN and WaPo were considerably more defamatory, I don't know, but based on the wording in the ruling it seems like the judge would've likely thrown the lawsuit against them out as well.
What compromise could the right offer the left that they would want? And what compromise could the left offer the right that they'd be willing to give up? The right would probably want stricter voter harvesting laws and some kind of approval system for vote-by-mail, and better oversight for vote counting in exchange for what checking IDs at the voting site? Most reasonable right-aligned people I've seen do not believe that voter fraud in that sense of someone voting twice or without the legal right to vote voting is rampant or affecting the election count to a changeable degree. The left has all the power, is already in the lead for the most part, and gets a political issue that at worst makes them seem naive in that they're defending the poor and downtrodden.
Also, even discussing the compromise will shift the debate landscape and it will suddenly not be about what the unreasonable people are saying. It's easier to come at this saying, well if the problem is just people who shouldn't be voting having a higher barrier of entry to committing voter fraud then why couldn't they come to some compromise? Because the people that seriously want to do something about this topic have serious changes in mind and most of them have nothing to do with how their opponents characterize their position. So, the people that think thousands of people illegally voted to a degree to change the outcome of an election are not going to want this because they're likely unreasonable because they are the caricature their opponent uses as an example of the other side and the people who would make the compromise probably wouldn't see the value in compromising toward something that amounts to giving themselves a worse position because making it easier for people to vote doesn't work in their favor: most people are left, why would they compromise to get more people IDs to vote when they're likely to not vote for their side by two metrics because they're more likely to be left-leaning in general and also specifically more likely to be left-leaning because of the situation they're in. It makes no sense to give your opponent a win like that to get some law about people checking state-IDs which probably from the evidence, I suspect, would not change anything, and even if it would it wouldn't be enforced anyway.
And that state census solution of finding people for 10k and forcing them to register sounds like it would be insanely disapproved by both sides as being authoritarian government overreach that would likely never be fully finished. It sounds like a make-work investigatory bureau would be created for the purpose and they'd likely antagonize many people, accomplish very little, and end up being used for things entirely unrelated to its stated purpose because its purpose would be impossible to accomplish anyway.
I don't know what the solution is but from my perspective it seems like mostly people entrenched in this aren't looking for solutions because the issue is more valuable existing than a resolution of the issue because most people don't care. I'm against voter fraud (so is most everyone), I want to help the poor (so does most everyone). It's probably a political issue of magnitude precisely because it's really hard to politically step in it because the issue is so seemingly contained to itself. Other soundbyte positions like being "for jobs" (but what about free trade?) or wanting to lower taxes (but how will you pay for anything?) require much more complex solutions. The issues without compromise are the easiest to represent yourself with the more compromise that leaks into whatever the issue is then the harder it would be to take a stance or even talk about at all. I think politically wedge issues are too easy to give up because most of them have two positions with no real nuance that you can talk about while appealing to your base, if they start talking about compromise then they're talking to people who won't vote for them so what's the advantage in an election? And what's the advantage of making the compromise when it comes to governing for that matter?
More options
Context Copy link