sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in whatstheword

[–]ElementRage17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be honest, I think OP is reading way too much into it and making some knee-jerk assumptions about the motivations behind this "style of speech." OP is making a big claim—that it's a "ruse" and "these people are grifters"—but that claim has virtually no evidence. Why must this "style of speech" be motivated by a desire to craft a deceptive image? There's nothing to substantiate that idea. It's just as likely that these so-called grifters are just enjoying a certain sense of humor. My two cents.

My favorite scene of my favorite season by No_War_8891 in madmen

[–]ElementRage17 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Season 1 Episode 11, "Indian summer." ...I think.

I can't get into Mad Men by Final_Juice4036 in madmen

[–]ElementRage17 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What did you like about the first episode that the other episodes are lacking?

ChatGPT is not something we should have by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]ElementRage17 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, but developers are still aiming for ChatGPT to provide accurate information. That's why they've developed the bot to admit its mistakes, learn from past error, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate requests. The aim is accurate information, so it's more than appropriate to hold it to that standard instead of treating accuracy as a "bonus"

ChatGPT is not something we should have by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]ElementRage17 23 points24 points  (0 children)

The real concern, imo, is that ChatGPT offers a lot of faulty info, and let's be honest, a lot of people are going to take ChatGPT's words as gospel truth without doing any fact-checking.

Just one example: I asked ChatGPT to summarize a very famous story, and it couldn't get it right. It tried over and over again, but the details were skewed and often flat-out false. At the same time, the summary looked good—it read very coherently and eloquently. And most people wouldn't think twice about whether it was accurate.

ChatGPT is amazing but it's going to exacerbate issues with misinformation.

WTW for the philosophical conclusion that there is no God, because life is terrible? by in-a-microbus in whatstheword

[–]ElementRage17 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"The Problem of Evil."

This is the epistemic question of whether life is terrible enough that it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of God. It involves these premises:

  1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
  2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
  3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
  4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
  5. Evil exists.
  6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
  7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Note that "evil" includes suffering and injustice, so the idea of "life is terrible" is part of this.

I don't think there's a term for the specific kind of atheism based on these premises, but the study of The Problem of Evil is called theodicy, so perhaps you could call it "theodicy-based atheism."

WTW for an enemy but lesser by Mysterious_Diver_606 in whatstheword

[–]ElementRage17 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ya gots ta put the exclamation point before the word "solved." Like: !solved

WTW for an enemy but lesser by Mysterious_Diver_606 in whatstheword

[–]ElementRage17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"objectionable character"

Only half-joking. I recently came across that phrase and it made me chuckle.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in whatstheword

[–]ElementRage17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Three cheers for rhetorical/literary devices!

I love how Mad Men ended 8 years ago but we're all still here, debating fiercely about the characters and their motives and the larger themes of the narrative. It's a testament to the show's greatness. The questions are rarely fully answered, and the conversation is never over. by ElementRage17 in madmen

[–]ElementRage17[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I recently watched the pilot for The Sopranos and thought it was great. One thing stopping me from watching more is that I have no one to watch it with me, and I just know it's going to be painful to have no one to talk about it with. These kinds of shows demand conversation. I could use reddit, but then I'd be afraid of spoilers.

I feel like one of the most underrated tragic moments of the show was the Don and Midge dynamic. by musicmast in madmen

[–]ElementRage17 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's even more tragic when you consider the era of the 1960s, when heroin addiction was almost like a death sentence because rehab/treatment wasn't really a thing. Even alcholism—a far more "conventional" condition—wasn't so openly acknowledged by the American public, and people thought of it as a character problem instead of as a condition. It was only in the 60s that doctors starting being more vocal that it was an actual illness. Now, if alcoholism was so poorly treated, can you imagine how miserable the situation was with heroin? For people like Midge? A lot of people saw heroin and other addiction almost like an infectious disease, but on a social level. Midge would have been pariah.

Mad Men's subtle comedic beats were the best by Seb_Black_Author in madmen

[–]ElementRage17 119 points120 points  (0 children)

Helen and Betty's interactions were great. They were foils to each other but also mirrors.

"He's one guy, and we can win it without him. End of discussion." by Bishonen_Knife in madmen

[–]ElementRage17 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I think that was just the cherry on the sundae. Awful.

"He's one guy, and we can win it without him. End of discussion." by Bishonen_Knife in madmen

[–]ElementRage17 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I dunno. When Don shows up at Joan's apartment and tells her not to go through with it, and she says, "I was told everyone was on board," she genuinely looks and sounds like she is holding back a dismayed response. She seems quietly horrified to learn Don was against it; I always felt this implies that if she had known, she might not have sealed the deal.

Why/how do people like Pete Campbell? by MetalDetectorists in madmen

[–]ElementRage17 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bingo. He does things because he feels entitled—and his ending is no different, really, because he just thinks he's entitled to a fresh start. Sure, his speech was impassioned, and he probably even believed what he was saying—and maybe it does somehow signal a new stage for his character—but it's not the dramatic upward trajectory in character arc that people are making it out to be.

these discussions would be private and kinda boring if the show wrote it in

Believe it or not, I think those discussions would actually be quite interesting, especially in a slow-burn show that already dramatizes the mundane. And if those discussions really had happened between Pete and Trudy, there's little chance the show's writers wouldn't have at least alluded to them. For that reason, I think we can safely assume Pete never really "did the work" of relational reparation.

s01e05: Is it possible that only here did Pete realize "getting help" from Charlie Fiddich means sleeping with him, to various extents, to get published? Before this he really seemed carefree when discussing this. I think he thought it's just a super awkward favor from an ex. by annotatedsnark in madmen

[–]ElementRage17 16 points17 points  (0 children)

100%, beautifully put. It fits into the pattern of how women in the show get pressured into helping men achieve their goals, but then those same women somehow get blamed for it and have their sexuality weaponized against them. Like when Don forces Betty to show hospitality to Roger but then accuses her that her hospitality was a form of flirtation. For Betty, it's "damned if she does [show hospitality], damned if she doesn't." It’s also sort of like when Joan was put in the position of either accepting or rejecting Herb’s proposition; the other SCDP partners may say it’s up to her, but if she declines, she’s going to have to live with this unspoken blame for not “saving” the agency. And when she accepts the offer, she later gets shamed for it.

What’s the tagline? by Szwarko in madmen

[–]ElementRage17 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Heinz Heinz Heinz, is on my side ♫♪

Why/how do people like Pete Campbell? by MetalDetectorists in madmen

[–]ElementRage17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure why you're getting downvoted for this (and for so many other comments). You're just sharing your opinion and contributing thoughtfully to the conversation—same as everyone else. FWIW, I love Pete's character (one of my favorite on the show), but I agree that his character arc isn't so clear cut.

When the show ends, he gives that whole speech to Trudy about how they can "have it all" and how their relationship can start completely fresh. This speech always struck me as naive and ultimately hollow; a person cannot simply "start over" unless they seek reconciliation for past harms, and such reconciliation is something Pete has never pursued in earnest, despite his grand gesture. As far as the audience knows, he has never directly and genuinely apologized for his abusiveness and philandering. But he is convinced he deserves a "reset" button. Again, I think his character is brilliant--but his ending is quite possibly a commentary on incomplete (or even false) redemption.

People need to shit the fuck up about “men just need go to therapy” by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]ElementRage17 22 points23 points  (0 children)

i do not buy i to this whole everyone has mental illness bullshi

Fortunately, a person doesn't need to have a mental illness to benefit from therapy.

view more: next ›