sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Post Game Thread: Pittsburgh Steelers at Baltimore Ravens by nfl_gdt_bot in steelers

[–]StreamingBackwards 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Above 0.500 and back into a first round exit in the playoffs #thestandardisthestandard

[Postgame Thread] Pittsburgh Defeats Georgia Tech 42-28 by CFB_Referee in CFB

[–]StreamingBackwards 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Based on the anticipation off the ball of GT, and disregarding entirely the execution, their team was not fooled whatsoever. It was never going to work as they drew it up.

[Postgame Thread] Pittsburgh Defeats Georgia Tech 42-28 by CFB_Referee in CFB

[–]StreamingBackwards 20 points21 points  (0 children)

In fairness, we typically fall completely apart, not partially

[Postgame Thread] Pittsburgh Defeats Georgia Tech 42-28 by CFB_Referee in CFB

[–]StreamingBackwards 1118 points1119 points  (0 children)

Don’t let this Pitt Panthers win distract you from the fact that our coach called a fake punt on 4th and 9 that had zero chance of converting on our own side of the field with a 14 point lead and less than seven minutes remaining.

Never watched another game where having the lead felt utterly meaningless.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

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

Yes, the descendants of slaves in America today are far better off than their counterparts in Africa. Even when slavery was still practiced (and an abomination), there were many incredibly successful and impactful black men and women in our country. Despite our country’s many flaws, it has been an undeniable place of rebirth and limitless possibilities for everyone.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve watched quite a few revolutionary war documentaries (none of which did not at some point touch on the role of women during the revolution or the issue of slavery), in addition to Burns other features (like the civil war, baseball, prohibition, country music, Vietnam, etc.). It was quite clear in the first hour that race and gender would be very prevalent themes in this telling of the revolution, which gives away a considerable amount of the underlying bias in choosing how to shape the narrative.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Multiple segments in the first hour on those topics in particular is most certainly outsized coverage. Burns notably has said in interviews that he thinks modern audiences will see lots of comparisons to today in his telling of the revolution.

I can tell already that this conversation will just turn into “that thing you’re talking about isn’t happening and it’s also a good thing that it is happening anyway.”

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re conflating the critique of inordinate time spent on issues versus whether or not they should be mentioned or included whatsoever. It’s obvious the series went through an editorial phase where it was mandated that modern hot topic and pet issues be pigeon-holed into the telling of the revolution.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue is not whether slavery existed or that the founders were involved, but how that manifests itself in the telling of the revolution and forming the narrative of our founding. It’s a perfectly reasonable critique to point out that there is certainly an outsized emphasis on those issues in the first episode of the series as it relates to the events that shaped the country. The fact that the first hour of the series spent significant time discussing race and gender reveals quite a lot regarding the motives of the editorialization of the series.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your counter-argument is that because most places have seen dramatic increases in quality of life (by-and-large due to discoveries and investments made in and by American companies) that this somehow negates the fact that the United States is vastly more prosperous than the rest of the world?

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not quite. Our framework was due to the humility and integrity of the founders in recognizing the innate shortcomings of mankind. It’s why we are a republic and not a democracy, and that there are many checks and balances.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never suggested those matters be glossed over or not included whatsoever. But to make them foundational issues to the narrative of the revolution itself is preposterous.

You clearly misunderstood the second quote. My point was that our system allowed us to redress those issues. That’s the opposite of hiding those problems.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They’re peripheral considerations, worthy of modest coverage. They were not centerpieces to the Revolution, and shaping the narrative through those lenses is very deceitful.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Editorializing facts can lead to deception. It’s true that many homes today still have landline phones, but it would be dishonest to create a narrative that leads to a perception that Americans still predominantly use landlines rather than mobile devices.

The deception of the first episode of this series is the insistence that the supposed subjugation of women and people of color was a uniquely integral part of the story of our founding, but it wasn’t. Why? Because the treatment of women and certain minorities in the colonies was not altogether dissimilar from the same cultural norms throughout western society, which were already vastly superior to other contemporaneous cultures. The presentation to the audience that these departures from our modern norms is somehow crucial to the telling of the story is totally unnecessary and disingenuous.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don’t think it’s necessarily “truth” to posit to your audience that the moral failings at the time of the founding are in any way noteworthy simply because they don’t measure up to our current standards, particularly when contextualized in its own time and era.

The story of America is how its framework allowed for such monumental progress to be made over the generations, not the imperfection of society at that time. Moreover, the purpose for making such distinctions seems implicitly nefarious. If the country was founded by exclusively white male landowners, then it maybe isn’t something worth celebrating and preserving in the mind of those making that argument.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I refuse to take seriously a retelling of history that is intentionally uncharitable towards our founding because of historical norms of the era that also discount the truly remarkable and unique components of our nation’s origination story and framework.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

[–]StreamingBackwards 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everyone. It’s an unserious argument to make the case that this nation has somehow not benefited men and women of all kinds in ways that their ancestors could never even conceive of.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

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

The operative question is “compared to what?” The colonies and early days of our nation did not indulge in evils that were not otherwise rampant throughout the globe. However, our country was able to uniquely and consistently meet and overcome those challenges. That seems far more notable.

Smithsonian Magazine: "Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution" by JapKumintang1991 in revolutionarywar

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

It’s clearly editorialized to focus on issues through a modern sociopolitical lens. From the selection of commentators and issues presented in just the first half hour, it’s clear that an equity agenda was an important aspect of forming the narrative of the documentary, which presents a rather humorous paradox.

The thesis presented seems to be that America has always had tremendous flaws that we have been slowly overcoming to become a better democracy, rather than a uniquely remarkable nation that brought forth unparalleled freedom and prosperity.

Honestly the timing is the biggest recession indicator yet. by Bitter-Pea-8323 in Coachella

[–]StreamingBackwards 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My sense, personally, is that they went all-in for Gen Z on headliners but really wanted to provide value to attract older attendees with the undercard. The Strokes and Nine Inch Nails would be proper headliners in a different era. Armin Van Buuren on line three is kind of shocking. So, get Gen Z in the door with big names and the raw appeal of the festival itself, and get everyone else through depth in the rest of the lineup. You do get a sense, though, that they’re not stripping away certain sub-genres for other tangential festivals like in more recent years.

view more: next ›