User Profile

Forum Activity by Puffin Nubbins

The last Spiderman.

Was expecting "Meh," but that was an "A" film and I'll cut anyone who says otherwise.
Aug 24, 2017 4:35 AM
First, let's not pretend to be scandalized when we find out a director is sleeping with actresses and actors. This is as old as the industry itself. "Oh my God! A powerful person is sleeping with a pretty person in the film industry!" Indeed, we should reflect on the poorly kept secret of sexual exploitation of underage talent.

Second, Hollywood is liberal, so it is not surprising to find someone espousing feminism who also happens to be banging female talent. Just about everyone in Hollywood is espousing feminism. This tendency engenders a certain hypocrisy, no doubt. But just about all powerful people who use their power to get sex, outside of leading Huns and Vikings who didn't give a shit, are hypocrites. Whedon is just a hypocrite for the left. There are many hypocrites for the right. Power is erosive to moral principles regardless of ideology.

Third, his art should be judged independently. If Whedon had just cured cancer last week, that wouldn't make the first season of Buffy any better. I always found it curious that Whedon was part of the cult of uber-chicks - 90 pound women fetishized as warriors who kick the crap out of everyone. I never really bought into the rhetoric that these roles were "empowering" because they simply feature hot chicks bending and flexing and groaning and flipping. You're still a sex object, you're just doing step aerobics to take the curse off of it. And this extends to action shots of Black Widow and Wonder Woman, which always seem to feature their ass, somehow. Doesn't bother me that much, but I never bought the bullshit about how this was somehow elevating women. And that Whedon may turn out to be yet another philanderer does not add or detract from this assessment. So people who want to pile-on because they never liked his work can fuck off.

Fourth, creative, interesting, influential, and to sum it all up, "great" people in history are also folks who are quite frequently often very unlikable and of dubious moral character. Don't expect great people to be good people. Don't expect good people to be great people.

Aug 24, 2017 4:33 AM
Takoma1
Sorcerer Supreme Nameless
Takoma1Right now, my feeling is that he gave me Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.

Just know that he was fucking a good portion of the cast to the expense of his wife

I'm not particularly tuned in to celebrity gossip, but is this now a widely held truth? Who in the cast?

Remember "The Body"?
Aug 23, 2017 12:49 AM
Instead of incinerating his account Philip should've been allowed to take the Black and man the wall in OT.
Aug 22, 2017 11:10 PM
I can't tell you how many guys I've know who've claimed feminist credentials as a way to get girls.
Aug 22, 2017 10:52 PM
Sorcerer Supreme Nameless
LegendYou know, I really couldn't stand this guy. Such an annoying and rude dipshit. An absolute thread killer. And his childish insults about having sex with everyone's mom were so petty and despicable. With that being said, I do worry a little bit for him now. This forum seemed to be a real outlet for his mental illness and loneliness. Even though hardly anyone liked him, I think he felt like he belonged here. He really should have thought a little before that spam meltdown.

I think far less of the person who feels compelled to write paragraph-long eulogies on the matter, like, get a life dude

I think far less of the person who feels compelled to write a sentence about the guy who felt compelled to write a paragraph, and I already think far less of myself than either for writing this, so I win this round, dude.?
Aug 22, 2017 3:12 PM
Janson Jinnistan
Puffin NubbinsAn Affirmative Action that is solely concerned with an individual's income and/or an individual's educational opportunities before college, without respect for ethnicity or race, is something I can get behind, especially as it applies to elite schools of "higher networking."

Income and educational opportunities are both demographic categories, conditions for which most students (children) are not responsible for, "accidents of birth" and such, and not "individual merit" or achievements accomplished by the student.

So what I'm hearing is that you only object to one demographic condition that the student is not responsible for, race, being used in consideration for college admissions. ?(I mean, you haven't even mentioned sex, which is typically another consideration in affirmative action.)

These are indeed demographic categories, but they are ones which are much more tightly linked to educational success than that construction we call race. These are accidents of birth which are not only linked to, but indeed constitute tangible categories of advancement/retardation relative to peers, so it is much less contentious to form an argument as to why these students deserve consideration.

Race is more coarse-grained and a step removed from these. Ditto for "sex." Indeed, the justification for using the category race is that it is allegedly a good index of income and educational opportunities, which is reasoning by sign. Why use a middleman "sign"? Why not just go directly to the justification?

It's not ideal, and I am not a fan of triage measures, but I am willing to make some concessions as we discuss how to fix K-12 education.

Institutions like Harvard and Yale matter because they are epicenters of power in our nation. The greatest disparity that exists in American society today is that which stands between the rich and everyone else. These institutions are not even really about merit - the average grade at Harvard is an A -. Getting people in from lower economic ranks does not really block anyone from getting a first class education, so much as it ensures different social classes get access to power networks.

If we're talking about a truly elite institutions and important careers where a lot of students wash out, the merit argument is much more pressing. Only the very best should get into MIT or onto the short list of future surgeons, etc.








Aug 21, 2017 5:42 AM
Sorcerer Supreme Nameless
Puffin NubbinsOh, like Sunshine?

You are the poster equivalent of Pinbacker

Hello Nameless.
Aug 20, 2017 11:40 PM
BadLieutenantWhile I wouldn't say it undoes the goodwill the movie had built up until that point, the third act of Stripes is so baffling in its digression into Cold War action-comedy that it takes what had until that point been a potential classic on the level of Animal House or Ghostbusters and knocks it down a peg. The movie had an obvious place to draw things to a close with the end of boot camp; after all, every character's goal and motivation throughout the story was to make it through that process. Then the urban assault vehicle plot line in Czechoslovakia comes out of nowhere and only ever feels tacked on to pad the runtime.

An important entry in the great tournament of RVs of the Apocalypse. It is in the ranks of Damnation Alley, Land of the Dead, The Walking Dead.

Also noteworthy for a very early appearance of Sean Young.

This was back when Bill Murray was still hitting nothing but net with the same Bugs Bunny character in every film.?

Aug 20, 2017 11:39 PM
Janson Jinnistan
Puffin NubbinsThis has already been covered upthread.

Yes it has.


Puffin NubbinsNo matter how gentle or subtly you attempt to confer benefits to disadvantages defined in terms of coarse demographic features, you will be blocking resources to other students in limited-resource situations, be that situation employment or enrollment.

I'll try this again. ?Affirmative action allows for these "course demographic features" to be used in consideration for admission. ?It does not force a school to strictly choose students based on them. ?There are multiple considerations taken into account.


Puffin NubbinsYou're like the marketer who boasts of "Frosted Chocolate Carbo-Crisps" that "they're part of a well-balanced breakfast." But sugary cereal is not and never has been. The well-balanced breakfast is the juice and the toast and the fruit and the eggs. Likewise, the fair admissions policies that are not Affirmative Action are the one that look at grades and extracurricular activities without respect to melanin or ethnicity.

Black people make the best biscuits though. ?You wouldn't know about it.


Puffin NubbinsIndeed, given the continually fucked up nature of K-12 schools, income and the level of investment in you K-12 education

Why haven't I thought of that?


Puffin Nubbinsthat fiction we all labor under called "race."

The systemic problems caused by centuries of racism are nonfiction. ?But, like I said about those who lack the sympathy....

I noticed that you dodged the central line of analysis again and that you still have not answered the question. And nice cheap swipe calling me a racist, you fuck.

The systemic problems caused by the fiction are all too real. However, the answer is not to reify and reinscribe the fiction via the moral hierarchies of identity politics (as Chappelle puts it, "the victim olympics"). The weight of discrimination is not properly relieved by the counter-weight of discrimination, not in the long-term.

Race is not part of a well-balanced breakfast.

Triage is not appropriate to normal medicine, but only under the exigencies of disaster and war.

An Affirmative Action that is solely concerned with an individual's income and/or an individual's educational opportunities before college, without respect for ethnicity or race, is something I can get behind, especially as it applies to elite schools of "higher networking."




Aug 20, 2017 11:21 PM
JansonWhat are you, Wolf Fucking Blitzer?

Are you fucking Gumby? Answer the question.

JansonNo, that's not what affirmative action is or why we have it. Affirmative action takes a number of things into consideration, race being one, and individual merits, both academic and extracurricular, being others.


This has already been covered upthread. No matter how gentle or subtly you attempt to confer benefits to disadvantages defined in terms of coarse demographic features, you will be blocking resources to other students in limited-resource situations, be that situation employment or enrollment.

It does not matter how carefully you discriminate outside of individual performance. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. And to the extent that you discriminate against race (even with other variables carefully weighted in), you're still discriminating against race. This is why it is triage.

You're like the marketer who boasts of "Frosted Chocolate Carbo-Crisps" that "they're part of a well-balanced breakfast." But sugary cereal is not and never has been. The well-balanced breakfast is the juice and the toast and the fruit and the eggs. Likewise, the fair admissions policies that are not Affirmative Action are the one that look at grades and extracurricular activities without respect to melanin or ethnicity.

I am all for nuanced admissions policies. Indeed, given the continually fucked up nature of K-12 schools, income and the level of investment in you K-12 education, these would be better metrics than that fiction we all labor under called "race."

To the extent that Affirmative Action works, it's discriminatory. To the extent that it doesn't work, it serves no purpose but to foster ill-will and self-doubt. Smuggling it into a picture of a well-balanced breakfast doesn't mean it's wholesome. It's still discrimination. And that you feel the need to mask it with other items on the plate only proves the point.

JansonThey sure as hell do


Depends on who you talk to.


And be careful how you ask, because it can get someone fired.


You know, it's almost like there's an unoffical quota system in many systems that disavow such policies...



Aug 20, 2017 10:38 PM
Rumpled 4 SkinSunshine
Haute Tension
Inception

And every Ti West movie

Oh God. High Tension. I was loving that film so much and then the twist was so hard as to have been impossible. Really disappointing.
Aug 20, 2017 10:15 PM
I think got into a zone for a while where he wanted to be taken seriously as a dramatic actor, which too him meant being perpetually grumpy faced and super serious. This phase lasted for about twenty years.
Aug 20, 2017 10:11 PM
Janson JinnistanSince I doubt that Yarn is reading my links, I'll offer this tidbit about the Fisher v. University of Texas case which SCOTUS recently decided on.


wapoAbigail Fisher, a white student, had sued, claiming that she was a victim of racial discrimination, because some minority students with less impressive credentials than hers had been admitted when she was not.

Fisher, who is the child of UT alumni, may have hoped her legacy status would compensate for the fact that she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her class, and her GPA (3.59) and test scores (SAT: 1180 out of 1600) were not high enough to qualify her for automatic admission. Nonetheless, these numbers were higher than those of 47 students who were admitted in part based on their personal achievements.

Fisher, now graduated from Louisiana State University, vows to continue her lawsuit, keeping the affirmative action elephant smack dab in the center of the room. The question hangs in the air: Do highly qualified applicants lose out in the college admissions race because less qualified applicants got special treatment due to race?

Never mind that, in Abigail Fisher's case, only five of the 47 students admitted with lower grades and test scores than Abigail's were minority, while 42 were white. Never mind that 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher's were also denied entry into the university that year.


I have no stake in this particular case.

Why don't answer the question I just asked in my last post before wandering off topic to commit me to particular cases I don't care about?

You've already argued that white people are uniquely racist, so why would I appeal to you with a tale of white plight or sympathy for the devil?
Aug 20, 2017 10:03 PM
Janson Jinnistan
Puffin NubbinsWhy can't Janson answer a simple question?

I thought I had. ?I'll dumb it down for you. ?If Harvard is placing a limit (a quota) on their Asian admissions, based solely on race, then this is illegal under federal law. ?Quotas are not what affirmative action entails, where race is one of several considerations (as well as economic background, extracurricular activities, and grades) used in the admission process. ?The first sign that someone doesn't understand how affirmative action works is that they describe it as a quota system.

You're reducing the moral question to a legal question. Not the same thing. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Harvard's practices are nominally legal (by the strict letter of the law) and let us further suppose that these practices resulted in a decrease in Asian enrollments by "20.6 percent in 1993 to about 16.5 percent over most of the last decade." Is this a good thing or bad thing?

Affirmative Action either entails a tangible benefit to a preferred community or it does not. If it does, quota or not, it gives them a leg up which does not reflect individual merit. That's the point. That's why we have it. Some have been kept out, so we want it to make it easier for them to get in. You cannot make it relatively easier for some to get in without relatively making harder for other people get in in cases where enrollments are limited (i.e., elite universities where everyone and their dog is trying to get in).

If Affirmative Action does NOT confer a SIGNIFICANT TANGIBLE benefit to those communities under its wing it is USELESS. If it does confer a significant tangible benefit, it is discriminatory, quota or no quota. Official quota or no official quota. Cops don't have official quotas for traffic tickets and yet there sure are a lot of tickets written at the end of the month in so many municipalities.

I know you think white people are uniquely racist, so fuck them, but what of other communities who are relatively compromised and punished for lack of a similar tangible benefit?

It's triage. It's clumsy. It's a way to prime the pump in the most dire of circumstances. Recognizing this does not necessarily implicate one as racist. Oxnard has no trouble granting this. Why don't you?


Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM
JansonAre you cooking rabbit?


Either a very verbose rabbit or a sort of contemptuous Jell-O.

Maybe a sort of flip-floppity gestalt like a rabbit-duck.

[img]https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.techtimes.com%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Ffull%2F208282%2Frabbit-duck-illusion.jpg%3Fw%3D190%26h%3D123%26l%3D50%26t%3D40&f=1[/img]

JansonI said that, at the very least, those people lack empathy for people benefited by the program, which is more of an unconscious bias than racism.



There you go again.

Sorry, skittery and slippery Rabbit Janson, but this is not consistent with what bold and brave Duck Janson said earlier...

I'm not sure why you hallucinated an "unless" in that sentence.

At the very least, I would have to conclude that such a person was highly unsympathetic to those inequities caused by, as you put it, the "accidents of birth".

This may stress your noggin, but what I'm describing are racist motives, "animus against black success" being one, "willful refusal to understand how affirmative action works" being another.


"At the very least," anyone who wants to get rid of Affirmative Action is racist in your book. Do you want to quack some more now or just leave more rabbit pellets?

And you're STILL dodging the question.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that this is, in fact, what Harvard has been doing. What then? That you refuse to answer the question of whether you would Harrison Bergeron these students or not is a very curious, some would say telling. Why can't Janson answer a simple question?





Aug 20, 2017 8:52 PM
MKS
Puffin Nubbins
Death Proof
Puffin Nubbins
Death Proof
Spencie ReturnsDamn, what did Lux possibly say to get himself obliterated from the forums?


He posted 1-line nonsensical responses to over 200 posts. Spamming.




That's it? What kind of stuff was he saying?


Well whether you like it or not, there are rules here. Which includes not spamming messages like an asshole.


For the most part it was:

dUNKIRK SUCKS
tHAT MOVIE SUCKS
sHIN GODZILLA SUCKS

etc. etc. etc.





Surprising, really. That's all.

BP wasn't really an "earner" for this forum. I am hard pressed to think of a BP post that was a real attempt to make a contribution to discussion on the forum. I won't miss him, but I am surprised to see anyone get banned. I guess if I had seen all the spam threads I wouldn't be asking questions.



Last I checked, he'd pushed everything currently on the front page 10 pages back and was showing no signs of stopping.

Ah, OK. That brings it into focus.

When I think of spamming I think of three or four shitty threads in a row.
Aug 20, 2017 8:16 PM
JansonOxnard describes what he called "discriminatory policies": "stuff like restricted voting rights, dismantling affirmative action, minimum sentencing laws, travel bans from Muslim-majority countries, etc.", and for some reason you chose to focus entirely on the affirmative action part - ignoring the crucial context of this being a pattern of policy - and frame this as an either/or, as in people either support affirmative action or they are racist. You say this in spite of the fact of Oxnard allowing "I'll always assume that anyone who supports those lawmakers does so in spite of their discriminatory policies", which should normally be the first clue that Oxnard is not presenting an either/or litmus test on the issue.



I don't have any beef with Oxnard. He clarified his meaning, so we're good. My beef is with Janson, the meddling pedantic white knight who is rather careless with his clauses. You're not getting out of this. There is no escape.

JansonYou seem to be working hard to imply that affirmative action students don't achieve things by comparison.



Appearances can be misleading. I remember, for example, many years ago being in a class with a student who spoke contemptuously of Affirmative Action as "Affirmative Blacktion" - I know that for that person, probably even today, he thinks of Affirmative Action in terms that confirm his bias. For him, the counter-weight, no matter well-intentioned or gentle was proof, a weight in his own mind, a prejudice legitimized by corrective policy.

More recently, I heard of an incident on a campus where a faculty advisor told a student that her grades were not the greatest for getting into graduate school, but not to worry about it, because being female and from group "X" would help her get in. The student was offended and hurt, because she felt that this implied that she was not good enough to get in on her own merit. Like it or not, that is the implication when you preferentially select for or against a group in terms of crude demographic categories. From what I heard, the advisor got chewed out for it, but the question of "Why?" matters. Did the advisor get chewed out for saying something that wasn't true? If so, Affirmative Action does not appear to provide a tangible benefit while creating harmful appearances. Did the advisor get chewed out because it was true? If so, Affirmative Action is conveying a tangible benefit, but why should the advisor get chewed out for telling the truth? Is this a "hate fact?" What if a high school advisor told a student that her grades were not the greatest, but not to worry about it, because she is a legacy student to the school which she is applying to?

Affirmative Action paradoxically reaffirms what it is supposed to put an end to. As a bureaucratic move it's adaptively fit, however, as this ensures that there will always be a need, because there will always be the perception.

A counterbalance, no matter how soft, how nuanced, how well-intentioned, or even needed, cannot but be a bias of its own. And this is why it is only properly a triage measure. I have no brief for getting rid of Affirmative Action, but I don't have any truck policy propositions up to and including getting rid of it entirely. I refuse to say that "at the very least" proposing its elimination is proof that one is a racist, as you do, which is stupid. And which has nothing to do with Oxnard.

Waffle HousePossibly, if that is, in fact, what Harvard has been doing which is not at all certain at the moment.



Let's speak hypothetically then, my overcautious friend. Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that this is, in fact, what Harvard has been doing. What then?

JansonI guess if I got burned that hard on a link I posted, I'd act like I didn't read it either.



That link is just balanced reporting where the journalist quotes the institution defending itself (strangely, institutions don't generally like making themselves look bad). I quote you all the time while disagreeing with what you say.

And please note, that this is not from this 2012 NYT piece which offers evidence of anti-Asian bias at Harvard and to which you only have the tepid answer that it's not absolutely definitive.









Aug 20, 2017 7:51 PM
Death Proof
Puffin Nubbins
Death Proof
Spencie ReturnsDamn, what did Lux possibly say to get himself obliterated from the forums?


He posted 1-line nonsensical responses to over 200 posts. Spamming.




That's it? What kind of stuff was he saying?


Well whether you like it or not, there are rules here. Which includes not spamming messages like an asshole.


For the most part it was:

dUNKIRK SUCKS
tHAT MOVIE SUCKS
sHIN GODZILLA SUCKS

etc. etc. etc.





Surprising, really. That's all.

BP wasn't really an "earner" for this forum. I am hard pressed to think of a BP post that was a real attempt to make a contribution to discussion on the forum. I won't miss him, but I am surprised to see anyone get banned. I guess if I had seen all the spam threads I wouldn't be asking questions.


Aug 20, 2017 7:44 PM