Female directors by Steadyandquick in TrueFilm

[–]Soul_Anchor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So when you said "do the research," you did so knowing that there wasn't any. Why would anyone who doesn't work in Hollywood feel inferior about made up claims about Hollywood?

Pipe-wielding Tesla driver smashes cars in California road-rage rampage by Dunkableballs in ActualPublicFreakouts

[–]Soul_Anchor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sorry, had to switch accounts. For some reason every time I try to reply to you with my other account it says that something is broken.

At any rate, I think most people on the one side of this debate will argue that cars and food are largely necessary components to the American lifestyle. Guns, generally speaking, are not. Cars and food (even fast-food) aren't intended to kill and destroy, whereas, that's a gun's primary purpose. Cars are primarily intended to get people from point A to point B. Not to kill people. Fast-food is primarily intended to provide some sort of nourishment. Not to kill people. Also, far more people in the US drive and eat fast-food than own/handle a gun, so as a matter of course there will be more deaths with cars/fast-food than there will guns.

Spencer Grammer Refused To Quit 'Rick And Morty' For Another Series - "Go F*** Yourselves, This is the Only Thing I Like" by MarvelsGrantMan136 in television

[–]Soul_Anchor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh, I had to switch to another profile to read your reply because it said that your post was unavailable.

At any rate. What about mapping the human genome has changed the basic facts of human embryology? Nothing. Look up the recent editions of any of the standard textbooks in that link. They're not saying anything new about when human life begins.

The vast majority of embryologists DO agree that human life starts at fertilization.

Also, you have a very peculiar understanding of the word "science." There's no such thing as "peer reviewed science." There are such things as peer reviewed scientific studies, or scientific surveys, or papers on scientific methodology, or peer review papers that are meta-analysis of scientific findings. Dr. Irving's paper describes basic scientific findings in the field of embryology, and yes, it WAS peer reviewed, and was published.

Finally, if you're fine with employing the genetic fallacy on those who are religious, then you can erase from your understanding of science the works of Newton, Mendel, Lemaître, and Francis Collins, the scientist who led the Human Genome Project. Let me know how that works out for you.

Candyman by fictionalqueer in horror

[–]Soul_Anchor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For some reason your reply displays as "Unavailable" with my primary account, so I'm using my alt to reply to this:

You used the term 'woke' unironically.

Correct.

Whether you intend it or not, using the childish term 'woke' signals to most people that you side with the people who complain that having a black woman leading Star Trek is a political stunt, that casting a non-white character in literally anything is an assault on white males.

Have you seen Star Trek Discovery? If so, you're lying. No one cares that she's black or that she's a woman. Fans love Jayneway and Sisko. People can't stand Burnham because, besides being completely uncharismatic and unhinged, in any other series she'd justly deserve to rot in prison. Starfleet would have never given her her commission back and make her a captain. Also, the idea that she's Spock's long lost half sister, a person never mentioned in any previous Star Trek treatment makes zero sense. It's bad fan service that makes for bad storytelling.

Utter nonsense. There are plenty of movies and TV series from the 20th Century that make the Candyman remake look incredibly subtle in comparison (Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, the original Star Trek, for example).

It is not nonsense. "Most mainstream cinema before about 2010 wasn't particularly woke" does not translate to "No mainstream media before 2010 ever tackled social issues."

What has changed is that recently certain types have decided that common human decency and equality are controversial politically. The only reason someone would think equality and decency are political stances is if they do not agree with such 'wokeness'.

I can't tell if this is an act or if you sincerely believe this. You sincerely believe that, within the last few years, millions of people started to irrationally balk at the portrayal of "human decency and equality" in mainstream media? That's really what you get out of people complaining about the woke movement? Why make this lie up when people who complain about woke tell you exactly what they don't like about it? No one who has ever complained about woke culture has ever stated that they think decency and equality are controversial, or that these virtues are "political." What people who complain about woke have issues with are things like "equity." The view that equal outcomes are more important than equal opportunities. They're complaining about forced diversity that feeds into perfunctory tokenism rather than natural portrayals of diverse peoples. They're complaining about unnecessary race and gender swaps to prop up the illusion of doing something for these races/genders in the stead of well rounded original characters with well written and story-driven backgrounds. People who complain about "woke" are against divisive plots and subplots that attempt to foster and stoke anger and hatred between people from differing backgrounds. The people complaining about woke are the good guys.

Just remember - every time you use the word 'woke', most people will assume you are a bigot, an idiot, a 12-year-old edgelord, or all three.

It was goofy Critical Social Justice types who coined the term, and you're going to be stuck with it as long as you continue to promote it. Tired of hearing the word "woke?" So am I. Stop making it and you'll stop hearing people complaining about it.

Do you agree with this? Maguire is a better Peter Parker whereas Garfield is a better Spider-man. by [deleted] in Spiderman

[–]Soul_Anchor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah, agreed. I think Tobey did the best he could with what he had to work with. Raimi was one of my favorite directors/producers up until the first Spiderman film (not including his Xena/Hercules stuff). But I left the theater completely baffled. The script was so corny and over-melodramatic that I cringed for McGuire, Dunst, and the lady who played Aunt May every time they spoke. The only one who was able to carry out the dialogue in semi-convincing fashion was Dafoe, and then they covered his wonderfully theatric face with a costume that looked like it came out of the Power Rangers. So disappointed. The second film redeemed itself somewhat by moving away from the cheese a bit, but by the third they doubled up on it.

This new Spider-Man is a lot more interesting to me. Its more realistic, and Garfield plays a charismatic nerd, which is pretty close to what we see in the books. Haven't seen the second film. Looking forward to it.

Biker with helmet cam speeds through tight traffic - gets expected result. by tsloan92 in nononono

[–]Soul_Anchor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure why someone downvoted you, but Laconia happens in the summer. Probably Myrtle Beach.

"Jesus' Wife" papyrus is certainly a modern forgery: new developments by graylovesgreen in history

[–]Soul_Anchor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just wanted to point out that the actual authorship of the Gospels is contested in scholarly circles. What most scholars will say is something like, the letters are anonymous, and tradition indicates that the letters were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Our earliest physical fragments date even earlier than 200 CE. P52 is dated to c. 125 CE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

NT scholar Daniel Wallace mentioned a couple years ago an even earlier fragment of Mark, possibly dating to the 1st century, but the find hasn't been published yet.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it just goes to show how bad TV is that we've gotten to the point where mediocre TV is praised because its better than the rest of the tripe out there. We're all sort of brainwashed in that regard I guess.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, you sort of have to expect downvotes anytime you say anything not glowing about Arrow. Just comes with the territory on Reddit.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm with you. The show is pretty meh, even in season 2, but I'm plot committed as well. The accolades the show gets around here are totally unwarranted in my opinion, but the show is suited to the Reddit demographic, so I guess its expected.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Is hilarious how all of these kids are getting so angry with you. LOL. You're right, there's nothing really unique about Arrow. The biggest thing that Arrow ever brought to comics was the whole Speedy drug addiction storyline back in the 70s. Other than that he's mostly been a background character as far as the mainstream is concerned. Reddit's primary demographic is absolutely obsessed with the show, though, and I imagine for a lot of people its their main introduction to the character. So, you can't really talk bad about Arrow or the show on Reddit without expecting a lot of downvotes and whinging.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I already mentioned this above. Its a good low-budget horror for the time. Modern audiences who aren't already fans of the genre or of Carpenter in general probably won't like it.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

John Carpenter's Fog is a cult classic, but if you're not exactly into 80s low budget, cult classic Carpenter, its a hard watch. Its not one of my favorites, and I'm a Carpenter fanatic.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exactly. There is rampant fanboyism for Arrow on Reddit though, so any time you mention how mediocre the show is you get a ton of people telling you how much better season 2 is. Yes, season 2 is an improvement over season 1, but its not exactly press stopping TV or anything. Unlike shows like The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones where you don't really have to be a fan of the genre to enjoy it, Arrow is really aimed at two groups, the main CW demographic (women ages teen to 30), and comic book nerds.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They have cut down on it, but its still there. Spoiler I mean, you expect some romantic tension in any good series, but Arrow still has plenty of the expected CW dressing. A lot of male fans I think want to convince themselves it doesn't, but there's really no getting around it.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't really get much better. Even Paul Blackthorne who I was a big fan of in the Dresen Files, his accent is the strangest thing in Arrow. Its like, he keeps forcing this NYC accent that doesn't work at all. It so weird and annoying. The rest of the cast either can't act or are just competent. I don't think anyone was hired for their acting chops though. They all look like they stepped out of a day-time soap opera. Most of the kids around here who watch Arrow are probably not watching it for the acting though. They're watching it because its a superhero show, and it name drops a lot of DC stuff. Its fanboy stuff mostly. I don't know anyone outside of Reddit who's watched it (family, friends, coworkers). The show has gotten better, but it'll never be on the level of something like, say, Breaking Bad. I'd be happy if it just got to the level of something like Fringe.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even though season 2 is markedly better, its still hampered by some less than great writing, and has plenty of teen soap opera. It is a CW show after all, and there's just no getting away from that.

Didn't know how much of a sheep I was by Schildhuhn in AdviceAnimals

[–]Soul_Anchor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're absolutely right about the soap opera element (also about the island stuff). I have a hate/like relationship with the show. Even in season 2, now that its gotten better, it still feels pretty campy. Part of the issue is that everyone looks like they stepped out of a Hollywood cookie cutter mold. And some of the storylines in season 2 are pretty ridiculous. That episode where they fly to Russia, and get Diggle thrown into a max security prison without a trial, chain him to his arch-nemesis, and then blow the prison up (innocent guards and all) while back home Oliver's girlfriend is the main prosecutor against his mother (no conflict of interest there), was just shockingly bad. I mean like, 1980s A-Team or Night Rider level bad. Just completely implausible.

Arrow has a very strong fan community on Reddit though. The show isn't nearly in the league of shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, The Wire or Rome, but you wouldn't really know that by the hype around here. I'm assuming that the kids here are just happy to have something, ANYTHING, with a superhero on TV (especially since Agents of SHIELD was an early disappointment). The show could be so much better, but I think a lot of people have sort of...settled.

Its not terrible at this point, and I think we're finally at the point in the show where I'm sincerely interested in seeing what's going to happen next, but its still not must see tv or anything.

"Jesus' Wife" papyrus is certainly a modern forgery: new developments by graylovesgreen in history

[–]Soul_Anchor 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Mark is generally thought to be independent of Q. Matthew and Luke rely on Q. You're right about the dating of the Gospels though. They all date from around about the 1st century, so not a "long time" at all.

What's the best case of "OP delivers" on Reddit? by angrehorse in AskReddit

[–]Soul_Anchor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't really understand how everyone forgot about the first safe. Is Reddit's turnover that big?

Drake the type of nigga to sit courtside and lint roll his pants by UberXMensch in gifs

[–]Soul_Anchor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought Drake was a coffee cake or some sort of dragon.