bertramm
Bertrammm
bertramm

Don’t pay this asshole the attention he so desperately wants.

We are the ones with the popular positions. You all are marginal and irrelevant. For so long, because of the source of the party’s power, the controlling vision has been skewed toward what’s convenient for wealthy donors, but that dynamic is shifting. Either get with the program and support our popular ideas, or get

Then GTFO and become a Republican. That’s all “moderates” are in the first place: future Republicans.

I get what you’re saying, but even as Twitter jabs those are some pretty weak insults and Kalaf would still come off looking like the idiot in the exchange.

The worst thing about Spielberg’s attitude is that the end result is the suppression of what everyone can agree is high-quality, credible cinema. He wants it to be harder for movies like Roma to achieve the acclaim and attention they deserve, which must then have at least a non-zero effect on whether Netflix chooses

Yeach, it’s a real drag there are studios throwing money at exciting filmmakers and not at all interfering artistically. It was way better when interesting filmmakers could only make a movie if a studio gutted it so much it no longer resembled their movie

The real question, though, is whether it’s Spielberg’s or Netflix’s attitude that best benefits us as people who ostensibly consume cinema. I find it hard to see the argument for Spielberg’s mindset if that’s how we’re approaching this issue. Netflix is unique positioned to give us what Hollywood is decreasingly

At the risk of sounding like “an old man yelling at clouds,” I do think there’s something to the argument that movies play in cinemas.

Spielberg has made it clear in the past that he thinks Netflix’s films— which run only rarely in theaters, and even then, not with a traditional distribution model—qualify only as “TV movies,” fit for Emmy consideration, rather than the Oscars. Netflix’s decision to put Roma in theaters for a three-week (and in some

The core failure of Samer’s emails is that he (supposedly) wanted to do this outside the social media scrum, but he crafted his initial jabs as though they were Twitter owns. Like, the only person you’re impressing, by basically saying the equivalent of “You’re canceled, delete your account,” is yourself in that

This is stupid. I don’t have any problem with the fact that you goaded him into a reply, seemingly specifically so you’d be able to print it (if it could be tortured into meaningful grist for public content). But please stop pretending that you were looking to do this away from the attention of social media. You

Ehh, I feel like a lot of the hate (or backhanded “concern”) for Kyrgios is just kind of lame. I don’t think he deserves any positive attention for being a “bad boy” type, but at the same time, I feel like the people who are super concerned or offended by his conduct are just a bunch of silly schoolmarms trying to

Get raped, bitch.

Clinton got raped by Trump in 2016. Same will happen to Harris in 2020 if she’s nominated.

No, it’s not demonstrably wrong. You are irrelevant and your politics are marginal.

You are irrelevant, and your politics are increasingly marginal.

No one fucking cares. This “story” affects a handful of rich people. It’s amazing that you’d even take the time to have a strong opinion about any of these people’s actions.

You know what won’t cure these ills? Assuming that electing somebody based on their identity traits automatically yields gains for ordinary people with those same identity traits. At least social programs represent an attempt to do the shit that governments can do (redirect resources to people who hopefully are in

Shitbags need to either learn to be better people, or get their shit tuned up.

Yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, that’s all you can really say. Nobody is ever going to be perfectly insulated from bad shit on the internet, as much as we may wish things could be otherwise.