User Profile

Forum Activity by Jean

La La Land (2016) - 90

This was basically my only real option on the plane. Still pretty great, in case anyone was wondering.
Mar 26, 2017 9:34 PM
Hi guys. I'm going to try to pay more attention to baseball this year.
Mar 26, 2017 1:19 AM
Girls - Season 2 (2013) - 80

Yeah, this show is gooood. "One Man's Trash" and "On All Fours" are especially impressive bits of writing/directing.?
Mar 25, 2017 5:10 AM
Fastball (2016) - 65

A documentary about the fastball that LIES. Nolan Ryan did not throw a 108 MPH pitch in the 9th inning of some game, PLEASE. Get your science right, you goons.?
Mar 9, 2017 6:23 AM
Paris the Goat
Jean
wirthlingBoiling achievement down to such a simplistic formula knocks down your x score, sorry.

Obviously, I'm not theorizing a complete model of reality, but those two things are probably a couple of the most relevant factors.


How about a variable (or a constant, anyway) for your initial lot in life?

Sure, that matters a lot.

Man, this went sideways on me from post one. It's like I asked how many apples Paula had after John borrowed two of five, and people are asking me why Paula didn't also have oranges for John to enjoy :(
Mar 3, 2017 10:39 PM
wirthlingBoiling achievement down to such a simplistic formula knocks down your x score, sorry.

Obviously, I'm not theorizing a complete model of reality, but those two things are probably a couple of the most relevant factors.
Mar 3, 2017 10:26 PM
Let's say your general intelligence factor is X and your "grit" or "determination" or what have you is f(x), and we're measuring achievement. Already the implication is that grit matters more than intelligence, which I'm not sure is true, but let's go with it for now. What is your f(x)?

I think I'm at least one standard deviation above the mean for intelligence (probably between 1.5 and 2), but my function is maybe 0.25 a regular person's. The good news is that I think X is immutable and f(x) is at least partially under your control, but it's hard.
Mar 3, 2017 9:47 PM
Speaking of advanced analytics, I was just browsing Baseball Prospectus's list of top pitchers in terms of career value. Derek Lowe is #42 all-time? What?
Mar 1, 2017 11:56 PM
chunkyloverWhat was your pick, Jean? You should've made a thread.

:|

I did.
Mar 1, 2017 3:52 AM
ergill sanchez
Jean
Zuben
His main point, actually, is that you felt that Moonlight was under obligation to reflect the black community, which is accurate and damning.

No it isn't, dingus. Or I should say, if that was intended to be his main point, then you've lucked upon discovering it by misreading that exchange.

Nope, that was a thing I said.

Although, to be fair, this is more an implication you've been dancing around, sometimes denying, sometimes implicitly endorsing, all the while claiming a lack of confidence in it that would seem more in line with shrugging it off entirely rather than arguing over it for six odd pages. Been a non-argument argument sort of deal, a long-winded "just sayin."

Yes, I know it was a thing you said. It's right there in your second post. It was not your "main point," however. This is a ridiculous sub-argument of an argument, but I'll see it through if you insist.

Can you be clear as to what "this" is in your second paragraph, though? If it's what Zuben is accusing me of (suggesting the movie represents the black community when that's way too reductive a take), then I've copped to it, and explained myself in greater detail because I felt like I needed to. I'm not sure exactly what you expect that I should do at this point to make my position clearer.
Mar 1, 2017 2:33 AM
And just to be clear, yeah, of course, what was running through my head when those dudes walked out was that Moonlight represents the black community, and, in a way, it does. There are not many black directors period, much less black directors making movies like this in a political climate that is begging for more movies like this to be made. Whether or not it's explicitly trying to be, it is a strike against the homogenous white wall of Hollywood that has been critiqued ad infinitum, notably after the last Oscars, and it stands for an underrepresented class in that way.

Of course, it very much also stands for another class, that yes, is a subjugated segment of the parent class, and that was not running through my mind.

I don't think any of this has anything to do with why I didn't like the movie, but I can't help you from coming to your own conclusions.
Feb 28, 2017 11:35 PM
Zuben
Jean
Zuben
Jean
ergill sanchez
Jean
ergill sanchezAll this Jean trying to underwrite his opinion with the sentiments of some make-believe black audience is really fucking tedious, although not surprising when all he's had to say about the actual film is remarkably thin.

Yeah, not really what I'm doing.

Yes you are. You want the absurdity of it being liked by white liberals and not by blacks (in your wide theater-going experience) to be some sort of shaming point to legitimate the fact that you were bored by it. Why? Because it was obligated to reflect "the black community" (as far as you can tell). Now you're bumping your head up against the fact that its protagonist represents people subjugated within that community, you keen fuck, you.




Jean
And all anyone's had to say about the actual film is remarkably thin, so that's not really fair.

Then go ahead, shame us. Show us some fucking balls ass analysis.

Of course, I would love it if I could objectively state that X amount of movie reception is due to Y amount of political horseshit, and X totally vindicated my underwhelmed reaction to the film. That would be great! If you get the sense, though, that I'm actually trying to fit that square peg into that round hole over the course of my tedious responses (yes, tedious, don't fucking come at me with your pitchforks out if you're not prepared for a shitload of bullheaded tedium in return), then man, you are way off base. Criticism of the film should directly address the text of the film. Sure, I was indulging in some backhanded deflection by making the comment that ruffled everyone's feathers, but never in a million years would I dream that that was sufficient to explain the moviegoing world's reaction to it. I mean gee whiz.

And don't you dare try to goad me into writing 500+ words on a film that a grand total of zero people will take on good faith after this pitiful exchange, you absolute bastard.

Naw. You're transparently glossing over the fact that Ergill, correctly, pointed out that you only just kind of realized that "black" is not the subgroup that accurately depicts the group represented in this film. That's a pretty telling/retarded error on your part and you're rightly being dicked on for it.

What the fuck? I'm not glossing over anything. Ergill's main point was that I was trying to apologize for my position on the film by calling in the cavalry of a fictitious black audience because I had nothing substantive to say about it. I responded to that directly.

I've already admitted, twice, that the comment I made about the black dudes who left the theater isn't really logically consistent or carefully considered, even for a throwaway piece of cognitive fluff, and ergill's second post seemed to acknowledge this?

His main point, actually, is that you felt that Moonlight was under obligation to reflect the black community, which is accurate and damning.

No it isn't, dingus. Or I should say, if that was intended to be his main point, then you've lucked upon discovering it by misreading that exchange.
Feb 28, 2017 11:10 PM
Zuben
Jean
ergill sanchez
Jean
ergill sanchezAll this Jean trying to underwrite his opinion with the sentiments of some make-believe black audience is really fucking tedious, although not surprising when all he's had to say about the actual film is remarkably thin.

Yeah, not really what I'm doing.

Yes you are. You want the absurdity of it being liked by white liberals and not by blacks (in your wide theater-going experience) to be some sort of shaming point to legitimate the fact that you were bored by it. Why? Because it was obligated to reflect "the black community" (as far as you can tell). Now you're bumping your head up against the fact that its protagonist represents people subjugated within that community, you keen fuck, you.



Jean
And all anyone's had to say about the actual film is remarkably thin, so that's not really fair.

Then go ahead, shame us. Show us some fucking balls ass analysis.

Of course, I would love it if I could objectively state that X amount of movie reception is due to Y amount of political horseshit, and X totally vindicated my underwhelmed reaction to the film. That would be great! If you get the sense, though, that I'm actually trying to fit that square peg into that round hole over the course of my tedious responses (yes, tedious, don't fucking come at me with your pitchforks out if you're not prepared for a shitload of bullheaded tedium in return), then man, you are way off base. Criticism of the film should directly address the text of the film. Sure, I was indulging in some backhanded deflection by making the comment that ruffled everyone's feathers, but never in a million years would I dream that that was sufficient to explain the moviegoing world's reaction to it. I mean gee whiz.

And don't you dare try to goad me into writing 500+ words on a film that a grand total of zero people will take on good faith after this pitiful exchange, you absolute bastard.

Naw. You're transparently glossing over the fact that Ergill, correctly, pointed out that you only just kind of realized that "black" is not the subgroup that accurately depicts the group represented in this film. That's a pretty telling/retarded error on your part and you're rightly being dicked on for it.

What the fuck? I'm not glossing over anything. Ergill's main point was that I was trying to apologize for my position on the film by calling in the cavalry of a fictitious black audience because I had nothing substantive to say about it. I responded to that directly.

I've already admitted, twice, that the comment I made about the black dudes who left the theater isn't really logically consistent or carefully considered, even for a throwaway piece of cognitive fluff, and ergill's second post seemed to acknowledge this?
Feb 28, 2017 7:05 PM
ergill sanchez
Jean
ergill sanchezAll this Jean trying to underwrite his opinion with the sentiments of some make-believe black audience is really fucking tedious, although not surprising when all he's had to say about the actual film is remarkably thin.

Yeah, not really what I'm doing.

Yes you are. You want the absurdity of it being liked by white liberals and not by blacks (in your wide theater-going experience) to be some sort of shaming point to legitimate the fact that you were bored by it. Why? Because it was obligated to reflect "the black community" (as far as you can tell). Now you're bumping your head up against the fact that its protagonist represents people subjugated within that community, you keen fuck, you.


Jean
And all anyone's had to say about the actual film is remarkably thin, so that's not really fair.

Then go ahead, shame us. Show us some fucking balls ass analysis.

Of course, I would love it if I could objectively state that X amount of movie reception is due to Y amount of political horseshit, and X totally vindicated my underwhelmed reaction to the film. That would be great! If you get the sense, though, that I'm actually trying to fit that square peg into that round hole over the course of my tedious responses (yes, tedious, don't fucking come at me with your pitchforks out if you're not prepared for a shitload of bullheaded tedium in return), then man, you are way off base. Criticism of the film should directly address the text of the film. Sure, I was indulging in some backhanded deflection by making the comment that ruffled everyone's feathers, but never in a million years would I dream that that was sufficient to explain the moviegoing world's reaction to it. I mean gee whiz.

And don't you dare try to goad me into writing 500+ words on a film that a grand total of zero people will take on good faith after this pitiful exchange, you absolute bastard.
Feb 28, 2017 5:50 AM
ergill sanchezAll this Jean trying to underwrite his opinion with the sentiments of some make-believe black audience is really fucking tedious, although not surprising when all he's had to say about the actual film is remarkably thin.

Yeah, not really what I'm doing. And all anyone's had to say about the actual film is remarkably thin, so that's not really fair.
Feb 28, 2017 4:38 AM
Janson Jinnistan
JeanI think there is an element of white people circle jerkery happening with this movie

It's the Oscars. ?It's all "circle jerkery". ?Are you unaware of the white people who have been circle jerking on La La Land?


Jeanit would be insane of me to mount a defense of that position based on "it was funny that these two dudes did this thing."

Let's set aside that this is literally what you did, and reflect that some of the confusion came with your inability to answer what was "funny" about it.


JeanIf you don't believe that there are any shenanigans afoot

Spare me.


JeanIt was Det who framed the hypothetical that most black people did not like the movie.

After the fact. ?Det did not post until three pages after your posts I quoted above.


JeanI have no fucking idea what most black people thought.

That's all I'm saying.

I didn't mount a defense of the circle jerk position. I'm just baldly stating that it is a thing that's happening. I'm not a sociologist, I just noticed something that potentially corroborated this view and pointed it out. I mean sure, you can say that's a defense, but it's a terrible defense, so not one that I'm intentionally making.

I thought I explained what made it funny (to me) decently well. It conjured an absurd image of a bunch of smug douches congratulating themselves on liking a movie that's not about them, while alienating the portion of the population it's supposed to be about. That's it.?

That said, I agree with Zuben that saying Moonlight is "about black people" is reductive almost to the point of incoherence, so my bad.
Feb 28, 2017 3:37 AM
Detrimental
Jean
Jannson JinnistanStuff.


I was for sure suggesting that the two black people walking out is indicative of it being a white people circle jerk. Absolutely, that is what you were "supposed" to take from that comment. I think there is an element of white people circle jerkery happening with this movie, but it would be insane of me to mount a defense of that position based on "it was funny that these two dudes did this thing."

If you don't believe that there are any shenanigans afoot, or if you think that it's nonsensical to use that incident to even suggest an image of said circle jerk, then fine. Just don't extend that to "Jean believes all black people speak for all other black people," please. It was Det who framed the hypothetical that most black people did not like the movie. I would never come close to saying that because I have no fucking idea what most black people thought.

I'm flabbergasted that you don't see the similarities between both opinions.

No, I get it. It's just inflammatory hyperbole (so, the usual) to suggest that I actually think those two people spoke for "the black community," or even that two black folks' opinions constituted a solid sample of the population. But hey, the comment I made was, itself, inflammatory and flippant, so whatever.
Feb 28, 2017 3:25 AM
Janson JinnistanStuff.


I was for sure suggesting that the two black people walking out is indicative of it being a white people circle jerk. Absolutely, that is what you were "supposed" to take from that comment. I think there is an element of white people circle jerkery happening with this movie, but it would be insane of me to mount a defense of that position based on "it was funny that these two dudes did this thing."

If you don't believe that there are any shenanigans afoot, or if you think that it's nonsensical to use that incident to even suggest an image of said circle jerk, then fine. Just don't extend that to "Jean believes all black people speak for all other black people," please. It was Det who framed the hypothetical that most black people did not like the movie. I would never come close to saying that because I have no fucking idea what most black people thought.
Feb 28, 2017 3:16 AM
Zuben
Jean
Detrimental
Jean
Detrimental
Jean
MeowAnd, the more I think about it, the fact Jean knew how many black people were at his screening of Moonlight and took note of their actions becomes more and more amazing. If you break it down as a series of events-- IE plot-- it's great. If you break it down in terms of story-- white man is wondering what's up with this audience-- it's hysterical.

Ok, I didn't know that there were only two black people in my screening, but I live in a pretty white neighborhood and the theater I was in seats like 60 ppl, so this was not some extremely calculated observation on my part.

Yeah but dude why would you bring that up? For what it's worth, let's say the black community didn't receive this movie well. So what? Usually it's only the artsy community that even likes movies like Moonlight. So what does it matter that black people didn't like it?

If that were the case, then it's all a bit absurd, isn't it? A high profile movie written and directed by an African-American, featuring a uniquely African-American perspective, captures the hearts and minds of the (mostly white) movie-going intelligentsia. Except most black movie-goers hate it. Lol.

Again, I don't think that even comes close to explaining what's happening here. I made the comment because there is obviously a politically charged atmosphere surrounding this movie, and doubtless there is SOME element of white people wankery that is elevating the movie perhaps a tiny notch above where it should be. Maybe the success of this film is like 95% explained by its quality and 5% explained by political bullshit. I find that 5% ridiculous enough to merit a mention.

Most black people like most white people enjoy stuff like Empire because it goes down easy and is probably not as hard to digest as Moonlight (I'm guessing here I haven't seen the movie) or say a movie like I dunno 8 1/2. Just because a movie is about black people doesn't mean that most black people are going to like it. That's pretty stupid and racist in itself.

And I agree if the movie isn't good and it's being elevated because of white people liberal bullshit then you should talk about it. I'm just saying that whether the black community accepts a movie or not has nothing to do with that.

If it's a good movie about a minority population told from the perspective of that minority population, it probably should be liked by a large segment of that population if it's going to represent them on a big stage. Like, say that someone made a movie about dweebs who like anime, and that movie got a ton of positive critical attention, except I hated it, and most of the anime-loving dweebs I knew also hated it. It would be particularly galling to me to see a bunch of people glad-handing each other over how much they loved that movie and how much that movie deserves the recognition it's getting, when they couldn't be more removed from my experience.

Obviously, "anime-loving dweeb" is way, way more specific than "African-American," so my analogy only goes so far to explain where I'm coming from.

Hey, do you know what the subaltern is? Hint: most black people aren't homosexuals. I promise you, most American black gay men who like film liked Moonlight. Expecting most black people, period, to like Moonlight because the protagonist is black when that protagonist occupies a marginalized and often Othered perspective in black communities... is just... it's very Jean.

You've got a point. I'm not going to pretend you don't. It's kind of like if I saw a couple of anime-loving dweebs walk out of a movie about furries and started to wonder if this film was really a big wankfest from the word go. That's an ill-considered perspective.
Feb 28, 2017 3:05 AM
Janson Jinnistan
JeanSee, you're not reading me carefully at all if that's what you think I'm saying.

I'm reading that because two black people - the only black people - walked out of your screening of Moonlight, then the film is only liked by white liberals for white liberal reasons, and not by most black movie-goers.

I want to again make it clear that I'm not using an anecdote to formulate a thesis on why Moonlight is well received. Det posed a hypothetical that assumed that Moonlight was not liked by most black people. I was responding to that.
Feb 28, 2017 2:57 AM