I think we’re on the same page.

Yeah, you might well be right about what’s going to happen to Tambor. I’m just saying, I don’t think that’s guaranteed to happen. I mean, plenty of people have done worse things than Tambor (with more solid evidence to boot) and still have careers. It might or might not happen here, that’s all I’m saying.

About the…

Well yes, obviously this is not how “the presumption of innocence” works as a legal doctrine. But big prinz said they were interested in discussing it as a more abstract principle, so that’s the context I was putting it in.

In this context, it is working analogously to how it works in a courtroom. It’s not an…

Yeah, I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t feel like “my personal awareness of a problem” should be the trigger for whether I think it’s very serious or not, you know? It clearly was or is an ongoing thing, and they were able to use their power to keep it out of the general media. It doesn’t seem right that…

I don’t agree with the majority of what she says in this interview! But I still think she’s doing a generally good job of being self-reflective about why she thinks it, which is very important.

Part of my problem here is that a “Senate ethics review” is an absolute joke, as far as actually holding people accountable. Just in general, it’s slow, really opaque, and often ends without any kind of action or recommendation. It’s typically a whitewash, not a good way of finding anything out and acting on it. It’s…

“The presumption of innocence” just means that you start from the position that the accused person is innocent. Then you hear evidence about what the accused did, and judge them accordingly. After you make a judgment about whether they’re culpable or not, then you impose an appropriate punishment.

In this case, people…

I don’t think that kind of fatalism is necessarily true. “People getting angry and raising a big stink” has been shown to lead to corporations changing their behavior (if it didn’t, there wouldn’t have been new Arrested Development in the first place). It might or might not work in this case, but it’s not necessarily…

I don’t think this point makes sense, though. Studios don’t always give their actors Emmys pushes. Netflix isn’t supporting the vast majority of its actors like this. They’re affirmatively putting money and PR muscle behind Tambor, despite his shitty behavior. That’s a real news story (at least, “real” in the context…

That part of my previous post has nothing to do with them, but the compassionate part of me tells me that there are people underneath those public personas, and from my viewpoint, that fact alone earns those two very real people the benefit of the doubt from me. I generally hate people, yet consider myself a humanist.…

Hmmm, that’s a fair point but I don’t know that it changes my analysis that much. It makes Netflix’s actions slightly less gross, but still bad? They’re still giving him a financial and PR push that they don’t give to most of their actors.

This is really disappointing. I understand (and agree with, I think) the decision to air Season 5 instead of throwing out the episodes or drastically recutting them. A lot of non-harassing people worked on the show, a lot of money has already been spent, I get it. But this is a big step beyond that - it’s Netflix…

I dunno, I think James Marsden does a great, smarmy Cyclops. You don’t quite hate him, but he’s just perpetually annoying.

Granted, that’s not my favorite version of Cyclops, and it’s not like he gets a lot to do with it, but neither of those were his fault.

And Shatterstar was played by Lewis Tan, who was by far the best part of the Iron Fist show on Netflix.

“I’ve had a rough year, dad.”

I had not realized they were formally embedding people as far back as WWII, thanks for the correction

al-Awlaki Sr. certainly was a douchebag, but was his kid?  As I recall the kid was sixteen, and had zero known links to any kind of terrorism.

In addition to what other people have said, I think another big difference is that if you punch someone and later realize you were wrong, you can make it up to them. If you blow someone up and later realize you were wrong, you can’t ever make that up - they’re just permanently dead.

I posted this somewhere else in the…

“Sea-lioning” originally comes from this comic. It’s an online debate tactic where people pretend that they’re arguing in good faith and are open to convincing; but really, they’re just trying to exhaust the other person and get into a drawn-out, enervated argument that doesn’t educate anyone about anything.

http://wond…

In 2017, 295 civilians were killed by coalition airstrikes (which is mostly the US Air Force), and another 336 were wounded. War intrinsically involves collateral damage to innocent people. Even if you’re not horrified by other deaths, you really ought to be horrified by that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-us…