I mean that might make some sense except A) it didn’t really mean he’s a genius, that’s just a career path and B) it’s also false. He did stand-up long after he was already established as a writer. And I mean, Mel brooks definitely had him beat even if that was true. 

Right, but the OP equated him to Leni Reifenstahl. The point is, even if he was good (and while it’s subjective, there *are* ways to talk about/convey the ways in which art is good, as you note when talking about books), I don’t see what was *amazing* or *unique* about him. What did he pioneer? What did he invent? Is…

Thank you for trying harder than the commenter I was replying to.

Thank you for at least attempting an answer, which is far more than the original commenter could manage.

“I should be able to make claims about subjects I admit I know nothing about, and if you ask me for even the *most elementary support* as is clearly expected when assertions are made in public forums, you’re just lazy”.

No, the problem is with you making assertions and trying to hide behind condescension when you can’t answer even the most elementary question about them. I thought you had some good faith, but it’s clear you don’t.

You don’t have to be a “maven” to have some idea of why he’s so important. If you knew George Washington was “important”, but had no idea why, I really wouldn’t expect you to be commenting about how people who don’t think he’s important really don’t know what they’re talking about, because you wouldn’t know what you…

Your condescension is rather foolish. I asked why he’s good, you could have just said “I don’t know”. Instead you gave multiple non-answers that amount to “watch his movies” and now “Google it”.

“But to assert that he isn’t a good filmmaker, as others have, flies in the face of both critical and popular assessment.”

Sleeper is a bad movie. Not the worst or anything, but definitely not a good movie.

I mean this sincerely: why?

I mean, given that there’s no chance of any peer reviewed research on a subject like this, it’s *all* anecdotal in some sense.

Ah. So you’ve got anecdotal evidence to support your claim. Gotcha.

I know it’s not hard, that’s not the issue. 

You would lose that bet. 

Since they would have presumably obtained a warrant, at that point I wager it would be seen as contempt (a warrant is a court order).

I found this headline super confusing. Obviously, I then read the article and my confusion cleared up, but I thought it was worth saying.

Generally speaking the courts have disagreed. That’s why you can be compelled to give fingerprints or on occasion DNA. Passwords/codes require you to use your knowledge to incriminate yourself. Biometrics require only your presence. 

The sense I got was that precious few few if any get to go to the good place. So its not that Chidi and Tahani are contradictory, but that the implication is you need *both* good intentions *and* good effects, and each of them fails at one of those. 

Not all news photographers are paparazzi. The word has a specific connotation.