Jinnistan wrote:

Still amusing how offended Stirch and Agripp got when you suggested the possibility of diluting the purity of the Royal Family.

I think there is at least a ten percent chance they are the same person.

They do sometimes seem to like talking to eachother.

Rampop II wrote:

Imagine things they’ll wish they’d never seen.

Rock wrote:

I'm 90% sure that A) grip was scoping out the thread in order to figure out what the most insane, morally bankrupt take one can have in this debate and B) Stu's posts were an excuse to inelegantly introduce Family Guy memes.

Trying to figure out if I'm more annoyed by the former leaving a giant dog turd of a post in the horrorcram (no, I didn't read the whole thing, life is too short) or the latter getting indignant about the time Ebert said something mean about a horror movie.

Lots of annoyance to go around.

Jinnistan wrote:

Rock wrote:

Rock wrote:

I'm 90% sure that A) grip was scoping out the thread in order to figure out what the most insane, morally bankrupt take one can have in this debate and B) Stu's posts were an excuse to inelegantly introduce Family Guy memes.

Trying to figure out if I'm more annoyed by the former leaving a giant dog turd of a post in the horrorcram (no, I didn't read the whole thing, life is too short) or the latter getting indignant about the time Ebert said something mean about a horror movie.

Lots of annoyance to go around.

I'm really only curious what were the two films involved?  (Or same film?  Or no film in particular, because that would be doublely annoying?)

I didn't read grip's post, but from skimming it quickly I'm not sure it's even related to any movie in particular, just another excuse to grind her same lunatic anti-woke axe.

Stu has been cherry picking examples about Ebert's bias against horror movies, something that literally everybody already knew and didn't care about, yet is wrapping it up in his usual indignation. I think there was another link to his thoughts on Batman Returns. I actually don't dislike the guy on the macro, but in the micro his posting style annoys me deeply.

I think Yoda should personally apologize to Takoma for having to read that.

This is what SNL is supposed to be for.  Have a fundraising ad for that marginalized and underserved group of ethno-oriented peoples - otherwise known as racists in the hate-speech of conformed and coerced allycucks.  These traditions shamed and shuttered, driven underground by the pogroms of wokeness.  When will our truth be told?  When will the swarthy tide leave our pearly shores?  As an oppressed and powerless person, I am only capable of pretending to be a theologian laywer of lush Russian heritage in a lucrative public relations firm with lots of friends and contacts in publishing...

But black lawyers?  More than one in a single court?  It's the kind of lazy stereotyping that leads me to want to emulate the epitome of a frigid cyberpunk suicide girl.

Fuck it, I reported her post. If we're not supposed to be discussing cultural war stuff, I'm not sure why she can keep going onanti woke tirades in completely unrelated threads. If a mod takes issue, that's on them.

Back to the Depp/Heard situation, or really the more tribal situation surrounding it, I saw where Monica Lewinsky has a new Vanity Fair piece about it.  What's interesting is how little she spends on discussing the case itself, or any of the niggling little details that are crucial to understanding the case.  It's almost an admission that she can't substantially defend Heard on evidentiary grounds, claiming to have only "grazed through the testimonies" ("with guilty fascination"), and so instead blankets a "we're all guilty" verdict, because people dared to watch and follow the trial, aka "courtroom porn".  Damn our eyes!  And, as I've repeated, this is courtroom porn, and there has been a lot of grossness on the sidelines.  I'm still about 99% sure that if Heard's case was on more solid ground going into the final stretch that Lewinsky would be congratulating everyone for paying attention to this uncomfortable but important issue and sticking it out.  So rather than admit that Heard's case has some significant liabilities, the fault lies with us, with our "obsessive" and "voyeuristic" need to notice the inconsistencies.

I am sorry that, apparently, Lewinsky chose to spend more time following social media memes rather than objective courtroom testimony.  I'm not sure why, that's her prerogative, but it seems weird that someone so intimately familiar with the distortions of internet media would do such a thing.  If Lewinsky wanted to denounce the toxic avalanche of petty twits, then by all means there's plenty of ammunition.  The problem is that the reason why she chose to focus on the social media memes, rather than the facts and testimony of the case, is because the latter do not conform to what she chooses to believe about the case, while the toxic memes definitely suit the narrative.  So instead, she throws the same kind of epistemic static ("the cherry-picked facts we’ve glommed on to that have led us, as virtual jurors, to 'just feel it in our bones') as other public figures whose preferred narratives lack a factual basis.  But it's clear from her article that Lewinsky "feels in her bones" that a pro-Depp victory would be an attack on "domestic violence survivors or those who have sought strength in the #MeToo movement", and, for good measure, then mocks those who would say that Heard herself has caused this damage.  She denounces our collective lack of objectivity while advertising her own bias, condemning how "we have contemptuously co-opted the trial for our own purposes" while co-opting the trial for a paid by-line in a fashion magazine.  Without any further attempt at parsing the memes from reality, let's just blow it up into absurd proportions and indict everybody.

But I'm most miffed about Lewinsky's indictment of Camille Vasquez and those who "idolize" her: "Oh, you thought we wouldn’t have any girl-on-girl action in this trial? That’s on Misogyny’s greatest-hits album."  Seems like the "girl-on-girl action" isn't limited to the courtroom, pussycat.  If Lewinsky would like to identify a single misogynistic statement that Vasquez has made, this seems tantamount to defamation in itself.  She's calling Vasquez a tool of misogyny, not because there's anything unsound about Vasquez's arguments or statements but simply because it runs counter to Lewinsky's own preferred outcome.  Indeed, this does "devalue" Camille's "dignity and humanity".  Again, Lewinsky's opting not to say a single thing regarding the evidentiary substance of Vasquez's defense is strongly reflective of those Clinton-defenders who refused to discuss the office power dynamics in sexual harassment law.  But, by all means, let's focus on the tweets and memes, always a steady foundation for discerning justice.

"Because the trial has also been available live on our screens, we think, subconsciously, that we have a right to look and watch. To judge. To comment."  But you are, Blanche!  You are judging!  And commenting.  And certainly not questioning your own right to do so.  In fact, I'll wager a guess why you chose to run your judgments and comments in a major periodical prior to the official judgment of the jury being deliberated and handed down.  Maybe because you don't really respect the judgment that appears to be coming.  Maybe you can see from the evidence in the trial that it might be a little inevitable.  If Heard's case was airtight, Lewinsky would be shaming everyone who wasn't paying attention to what would surely be a momentous verdict.

Last edited by Jinnistan (5/31/2022 8:24 pm)

Depp won. Cue the hand-wringing.

crumbsroom wrote:

Rock wrote:

I have a lot of respect for Tak for being able to read through and respond to posts like that in a civil manner.

They've been having this endless back and forth since we got there. That twit never absorbs anything. She never modulates her awfulness. And she's very very awful. I generally don't like to extend what I know of people's online personalities with who they are in real life, but in this case, I have almost zero doubt 'grip' is a terrible human being. And I am getting to the point I'm finding it grotesque that anyone even entertains her insanity anymore. Yes, Tak is a saint in this matter, but that is a poster that does not deserve patience. They should just be ignored.
 

I personally just avoid engaging with grip's nonsense because life is short and I don't need that in my life. But at the same time, her and a bunch of other posters repeatedly come into threads and leave that bigoted nonsense there, and the mods don't do nearly enough to challenge it. So I suppose it's fair that somebody does. If there's a dog turd on the sidewalk, shouldn't somebody pick it up?