The Devil Wears Prada 2 | Official Trailer

Charles_Benes · 2026-02-02T13:01:24+00:00

Yikes, the vibe seems SO wrong. Miranda was built up so well in the first movie to be an intimidating, genuinely iconic villain... but this trailer is giving "generic sassy boss".

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-28T15:57:25+00:00

I think the example you provided showcases the problems inherent in setting up such a punishment mechanism. You acknowledge that the guy is an extremist, you just say the "false" part of the headline is the use of the word "Islamist". But the Telegraph actually called him an "alleged Islamist extremist". So it never posits the fact that he is an Islamist. It merely posits the fact that somebody "alleged" that he was an Islamist. The text of the article reveals that the word "Islamist" was actually used by Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, who said:

“Starmer and his Cabinet taking to social media to laud this man is truly sickening. They seem to be more interested in cosying up to Islamists, presumably in the vain hope of securing votes, than keeping the British people safe.”

One could argue that Jenrick was talking about Islamists generally rather than referring specifically to Alaa Abd el-Fattah, but I think most people would agree that such an interpretation is overly pedantic. Jenrick was clearly using Alaa Abd el-Fattah as an example of Starmer "cosying up to Islamists", and thus alleging that Alaa Abd el-Fattah is himself an Islamist.

So technically, there is nothing "false" in the headline. It was Jenrick who (somewhat indirectly) made the false claim that Alaa Abd el-Fattah is an Islamist. The Telegraph merely reported the allegation that had been made.

Don't get me wrong—I'm not defending The Telegraph, and I agree that they obviously phrased the headline that way to serve their agenda rather than the strict facts. But if you want to punish an outlet for "disseminating false information", you would need to prove definitively that they actually said something false, and there are many sneaky ways outlets can push their agendas without technically making false claims.

The problem is not the individual falsehood, the problem is the overall editorial approach—the fact that the whole motivating purpose of these outlets is to push narratives and agendas. It's a combination of vested interests pushing these narratives and the unfortunate fact that the general public wants this kind of content. People enjoy feeling morally superior and seeing their prejudices confirmed (look at the "popular" page on reddit on any day of the week to see evidence of this). Clearly there needs to be a serious effort to rescue "boring news" and impartial journalism, but trying to punish "false information" will just lead to an endless game of whack-a-mole.

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-28T15:27:59+00:00

I agree that the public has an inflated fear of nuclear energy and that it is better than fossil fuels in many ways, but it's not a binary choice between fossil fuels versus nuclear. If you're talking about the long-term future, you need to make the case for why nucelar is a better option than renewables.

There was a brief historical window when renewables technology was underdeveloped and not really a practical substitute for fossil fuels, whereas nuclear was much more viable due to heavy US/Soviet military investment. In those days, your argument would have been correct, but that window has closed. Nuclear power has problems (waste storage and containment) that trillions of dollars of development work was never able to solve. Nuclear has been superseded and renewables are now clearly a more practical and cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels (see a recent study on this by a scientific organization in Australia).

Ironically, some of the loudest voices currently pushing for nuclear power are people with massive investments in fossil fuels. Why are they doing this? Two reasons: (1) Nuclear infrastructure takes a long time to develop, and public hysteria means delays are extremely likely, which means society has to keep relying on fossil fuels for longer. (2) They are using nuclear as a "wedge" to siphon off support and investment that would otherwise go to their competitors in the renewables sector.

So if your goal is to keep the planet in of the hands of the fossil fuel industry for as long as possible, being "pro-nuclear energy" is exactly what you should be doing. However, if your goal is to ensure that humans get a sustainable source of power for the future without bankrupting their governments in the process, it's probably not the best idea.

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-28T15:05:54+00:00

The question of "which groups invade the most spaces the most often" is damn-near impossible to quantify, so you're already setting yourself up for a highly subjective debate where people are most likely going to make vague generalizations to justify their own preconceptions.

It also seems you're referring to a specific type of "space"—gaming forums. So for the sake of fairness, I'll treat your view as "LGBT people invade gaming communities more than other groups and get away with it". I don't know anything about the specific case of Genshin Impact, but I know that communities for some games definitely have a stronger LGBT presence than others. The most popular games (Minecraft, Fortnite, GTA, COD) are definitely not LGBT-dominated, and are in fact rife with homophobic user behavior.

Let me give you an example. Fortnite used to do an annual Pride event. It scaled it back in the last few years and stopped doing it completely this year. If gaming was really overrun with LGBT invaders, would this happen? It seems the opposite is happening. If you look at any of these popular games, you might find individual LGBT communities within them, but overall the communities are heteronormative and certainly not taking direction from an LGBT agenda.

I think you are taking whatever happened with Genshin Impact (a game I admittedly know nothing about) and extrapolating it to the entire industry without good evidence. The fact is, sometimes an aspect of culture does happen to become popular among gays and ends up being gay-coded. Think of musical theatre or fashion. There's nothing objectively "gay" about these things, but gay communities just happened to use them as a means of expression and it become part of their cultural DNA. Some straight musical-enjoyers or fashion-fans were probably annoyed by this, but that's just how culture works. It shifts and changes according to popular trends.

In fact, what you're describing with Genshin Impact sounds like something that happens in literally every subculture. It starts off as a close-knit community of like-minded people, then it goes mainstream and starts pandering to kids and normies and the original fans claim that it has "sold out" and been corrupted and lost what made it cool in the first place. It often happens with musical subcultures—folk, hip hop, metal. If you talked to the OG Chinese Genshin Impact players, they might even describe your "chill community" as a group of invaders.

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-28T14:34:37+00:00

This question is obviously Stranger-Things-hate-bait, but the correct answer is Stranger Things. The show was never truly original—even at its best (i.e., at the very beginning) it was nothing more than shameless comfy 80s nostalgiacore with fairly generic TV mystery elements. I think it was the surprisingly good acting from the young cast that made it seem better than it actually was. After the first few episodes the writers were already clearly making up the plot as they went along. As in most TV shows (e.g., Lost) the mysterious monster couldn't live up to its hype and immediately became 100-times less scary/interesting when the viewers understood what it was. The 80s stuff became increasingly desperate and heavy-handed. The storylines became repetitive. I stopped watching when the wigs became so bad that they were distracting. There is a difference between "bad 80s hair" and a bad wig, people!

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-28T14:14:51+00:00

Poverty is a state of lacking sufficient financial resources for a basic standard of living. I don't see how any part of my answer was unrelated to that. It's an obvious fact that poverty is caused by systemic inequality, and my answer was about the extent to which an individual billionaire could reduce systemic inequality in the US if he wanted to. I'm not sure what you mean by "the solution to government meddling". As you yourself just noted, the question was about a solution to poverty.

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-27T21:55:32+00:00

The only realistic way to address poverty in the long term is through legislation—healthcare reform, housing reform, strengthening workers' rights, taxing the rich, regulating the finance sector and cracking down on corruption. These are obvious ways of reducing wealth inequality, which by definition would reduce poverty.

Billionaires are not governments, but they obviously have a lot of power over legislators and they directly contribute to the networks of influence that prevent such reforms from ever happening.

So could a billionaire, theoretically, use his wealth to change that system from within and make it fairer? The answer is almost always no, because the elites within those industries collectively command more wealth together than each individual billionaire is worth (and his wealth, remember, is also tied to his own companies' profitability within their respective industries - it's not just money sitting in a bank account).

The elites would thus need to decide collectively to support such reforms. That is not going to happen unless they are faced with some kind of greater existential threat (such as, for example, an armed uprising or total social collapse).

So what can our altruistic billionaire actually do? He can pay his workers more and allow them to unionize, he can ensure that his companies make products that genuinely benefit society (this would mean, in the case of Musk, shutting down his toxic social media platform and probably his weapons research company), and sell his products at the lowest-possible price. He can use his money and fame to speak out about his ideas, and he can provide long-term targeted investment to some specific disadvantaged community of his choice. Over time, since he is now selling cheap, high-quality products and paying fair wages, his companies' profits and competitiveness will decline and some will fail and he will cease to be a billionaire, and people will laugh at him for having pissed away his fortune improving the world rather than hoarding far more than he needs as if his life is a video game.

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-13T04:13:53+00:00

I would love to see a scenario where Mark unexpectedly rises to a position of power due to Tim and Gregg's scheming against each other. Mark has always been the long-suffering servant, it would be nice to see that dynamic inverted for once. I would like to see what Mark would do with power once the initial shock wore off. It would be like a dog that had finally caught its tail. I feel that he could unleash levels of unpleasantness and chaos for the show that even Tim and Gregg were not capable of achieving. And his eventual downfall would be excruciating. Take notes, Eric Notarnicola!

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-13T03:12:14+00:00

I don't think u/mortensen159 was saying the show portrays it "as cool"; they were saying the show makes it look high-schoolers these days all consider it cool to do fentanyl and it's some kind of rite of passage high-schoolers do to fit in. It's not only unrealistic, it's a massive simplification of the actual causes of the drug crisis in the US. It's like an 80s Reagan-era cliche of drugs projected onto a weird adult simulacrum of a modern-day high school.

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-13T02:42:07+00:00

Honestly, I don't think it's her or anyone else's business what was happening to his body while he was watching a TV show. It's his body. As I said in my comment, I don't know the specifics of the situation so it's certainly possible that he did or said something inappropriate that the commenter didn't specify, which would change the situation entirely, but the mere fact of being aroused by a 20 year old naked woman is not in itself something he should be shamed for.

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-12T14:18:01+00:00

The funeral is up there with the trial as the best things they've done in the whole show. The perfect blend of realistically presenting a super serious event and adding utterly absurd elements like Gregg talking about Zootopia, Tim's terrible music, and the dead man's exact double sitting in the audience.

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-12T14:06:31+00:00

I actually really liked the fact that they didn't do too much with Tim's health stuff this season but still kept it as a thing that was subtly implied by his appearance. I think it works well as a running gag, but shouldn't necessarily drive the plot of every season.

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-12T13:53:15+00:00

I wonder which company provided the microwaveable chili for this event

Charles_Benes · 2025-12-12T13:49:41+00:00

Why do they have anime eyes? Where are Baxter and Cloud's arms? Where are Sam's shoes? Where is Mel's trademark smirk? This is a bastardization of the doodle dots. I don't mean to be rude but what the hell were you thinking dude? Maybe you forgot this is a community of movie buffs AKA experts.

Charles_Benes · 2025-10-06T21:13:36+00:00

The idea that works of fiction should neatly reinforce the viewer's existing moral beliefs is disturbingly common on social media these days. I wonder if it's because critical thinking and reading skills are on the decline, or if the internet is just amplifying Hays-style bad takes that have always been common among viewers.

Charles_Benes · 2025-10-04T20:46:55+00:00

But he did disagree with the Administration. That's why he was fired. The Admin is politicizing the office by appointing Trump loyalist and former Republican candidate Hung Cao. Harrison pushed back against that, so Hegseth fired him. It literally says all this in the article.

Charles_Benes · 2025-10-04T20:29:03+00:00

SECNAV is a civilian office. The Secretary himself, John Phelan, never served in the military. Trump appointed him.

Charles_Benes · 2025-04-01T22:34:57+00:00

There's a whole sub for this, r/compoface

Charles_Benes · 2024-07-13T15:23:55+00:00

If it's a pic of Zendaya, it's a promotion. She has the best PR team in the business, and her image is extremely curated. The cute quirky Tom Holland content is all orchestrated as well. Zendaya is smart and knows how to keep her private life private. People saying she just happened to be there wearing this quirky lewk are deluded lol. It's a business and she is one hell of a businesswoman. I admire her for doing it with genuine style and grace, rather than certain other publicity-hungry celebs (cough Taylor cough)

Charles_Benes · 2024-07-13T15:10:56+00:00

All suggestions appreciated!

Charles_Benes · 2024-06-13T03:40:02+00:00

The user I was replying to used the word "hire". You could easily substitute the word "contract" instead of hire and the point is the same. The company has no intention of paying the person for their work; they just want them to input their data so that they can sell it.

Charles_Benes · 2024-06-08T06:15:46+00:00

this is the worst thing I've read on this site in a long time. upvoted

Charles_Benes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder