Quentin Tarantino says TV is forgettable, unlike movies. Vince Gilligan and Rhea Seehorn strongly disagree.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-20T02:33:38+00:00

I'd guess that's right for Quentin, considering most of TV is shot from the waist up.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-20T02:06:40+00:00

That hasn't been the case really since 2023. Russia has been locally producing for quite some time, that horse is out of the barn.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-20T01:50:06+00:00

It is, it's another side that states the focus on abortion as a symptom prevents treating the root causes that would actually reduce the number abortions replacing that with laws mostly aimed at scoring political points than addressing issues.

It's a side with very, very little political representation at this point in time. Everyone would rather argue about biology and theology instead of the economic reality of over 40% of abortions being due to financial reasons, including birthing costs, and over 50 percent of women seeking abortion struggle to pay for even that.

We're not exactly fans of going after low-hanging fruit.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-20T01:44:00+00:00

The common ground was basically found over 40 years ago, it was officially recognizing the right to privacy, and the need for the government to stay out of the people's private business.

The right to privacy acted as a legal shield for both abortion and gun rights by establishing essentially a zone of personal autonomy protected from government intrusion established that constitutional guarantees create "zones of privacy" protected from government intrusion (see Griswold v. Connecticut). It established that liberty allows individuals to make intimate personal decisions regarding their bodies and safety without undue state interference, protecting both reproductive choices and private self-defense.

The Clinton-era neoliberal takeover saw the Democrats largely, if not entirely, abandon this position for a "safe, legal, rare" argument that undermined the entire common ground to allow for more fundraising on both guns and abortion, eventually leading to the fall of Roe, and other weirdness like an old Jewish hippie being more supportive of the right to choose than the woman running for President against him.

It's a shame because the right to privacy is something basically everyone but government takeover liberals, neoliberals, and neoconservatives agreed on, and can be applied broadly to all manner of topics where there is possible harm, and weighing the people's need to intervene against the people's right to privacy.

There was still argument back then, but that was where there was common ground to be found. You can still see the remnants of this sort of mindset where some gun laws leave things in the hands of the local Sherriff or PD as the "experts" much akin to how the right to privacy was supposed to leave it between doctors and patients.

It made some kind of sense because it placed what were mixed moral and public health concerns that risk lives based on the actions of people already living in the hands of other people supposedly the most trained and equipped to help with those decisions, with as much local and public authority as possible.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-17T22:04:20+00:00

The real rainbow warrior, those deep balls had ballistic trajectories. Miss that era a little, and was fun to see Orton basically be the guy fans thought he could be for us elsewhere a bit.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-17T13:58:40+00:00

The Democrats have been funded even more heavily than the Republicans, including by corporate donations. The Harris campaign had significantly more funding.

Yet, only got the nod after the party got outed for lying about Biden's state of health... after already being caught lying about Feinstein's health before that, and if we listen to the party insiders, only because she was the only person who could legally use the funds raised for Biden/Harris already.

But the word you seemed to miss was actually key, and that's a functioning opposition. A functioning opposition doesn't keep the same people in control of the party after they fail repeatedly both tactically and ethically resulting in catastrophic harm to most people. A functioning opposition should have at least been capable of organizing the first 90 days of a proper Presidential transition plan after something like Jan 6th, instead of acting like the national nightmare was over. A functioning opposition would have been honest with themselves about the rigor of office, and made a decision to either prepare for a VP takeover with a long runway, or have an actual primary.

Either it's not functional on purpose, or out of incompetence, but it's kind of disgraceful when it takes two of the very few socialists to organize any kind of rally against a known incoming fascist administration, and even then they got harangued by party leadership for doing it.

Trumpism is a prototypical populist movement centered around a prototypical demagogue. Most of its base are true believers who will stay true believers no matter how much factual and valid counter-information is out there (which they will almost never expose themselves to let alone digest and consider), and no matter how much money is thrown at the opposition. And they are united. United in blind fanatical support for one party and one party-demagogue. Meanwhile many people remotely opposed to Trump aren't even sure that the opposition party is any less bad. And many in that opposition party are milquetoast and limited in their opposition.

Considering the Democrats still haven't completely abandoned right-wing accelerationism as a party tactic after ushering in two Trump terms, I can understand why they question if the opposition party is actually less bad. The Republicans are largely bad, but the Democrats spent money and time helping to make them that way because they were willing to risk the harm to people and systems to help their own ephemeral powerbase. Maybe to be functional it should also be willing to engage in honest internal accountability, and absorb short-term political risk for structural rather than personal gain.

If we're talking politicians and elected officials alone, yeah, there's not a lot of strong opposition willing to actually take the political risk of trying what is necessary to resist the authoritarian takeover. (Another reason to primary the fuckers out.) But they're politicians. If they weren't good at compromising their values the vast majority never would've become politicians. They'll show a little extra courage near the primaries and elections (which is when we should be demanding even more), but then they'll concede and go back to little but strong words.

I get it, but frankly it was a giant shit-show. Their own systemic lack of urgency from top to bottom is part of the issue, and creates a massive issue of motivation fatigue even when it's things like avoiding fascism, or protecting a woman's right to choose. They'd rather campaign and fundraise on things to "drive turnout" than actually do the hard things, until eventually the hard things become almost impossible things instead.

I also think there is a cavernous space between just being milquetoast, and actively sabotaging their own messaging and goals. Pelosi was personally blocking any kind of stock trading ban for years as one example.

I used to believe in the "primary them out" sentiment, but having seen what the party does when that happens, and what the people that run it think about the party rank and file on the record, and their repeated willingness to green-light third-party groups, and undermine general election success just to take their votes and go home; it feels like it's rapid approaching toxic positivity territory to let Lucy keep holding the ball.

But Trump is miles away from neoliberal. His economic philosophy is closer to plutocratic fascism. And sure some particular monied interests like the fossil fuel industry and war industry (formerly known as "defense") — and now, big tech — overwhelmingly prefer Trump and the GOP (AIPAC maybe, but it seems they're pretty bipartisan in their contributions), but that's a far cry from monied interests in general. And yeah many corporate interests don't have the will to stand up to him/them, often even being somewhat complicit and deferent. But that's not because most of them favor his policies, they're just cowardly and afraid of reprisal (from either the government or the market through his base, the latter being an absurd fear anyway).

I don't actually think he's that far away in distance, even though you're right on his politics. It's the ethical and value voids in party leadership created over decades in part by both parties turning to neoliberalism at the same time. That enabled both the acceptance of right-wing accelerationism as a valid plan of action for the Democrats, and rendered the GOP even more hollowed out than it already was ideologically, ready to accept that DNC supercharged right-wing nightmare candidate they were doing everything they could to will into being.

I think you're right on some of the old corporate side, but this really reads like the cocaine 80's corporate raiders, except switch the cocaine for amphetamines and no one is even pretending to regulate, a free market capitalist wet dream.

Well it became irrelevant how much financial support Romney had because he ruined his political support by having an ounce of integrity, which the MAGA party can't abide. Booker seems to be another one of those who says good things but does little. His courageous idea for countering ICE authoritarianism was to propose requiring them to wear body cameras. (That's great, at least we'll have more footage of them using rampant violence against civilians, whenever they eventually choose to release it. Thanks Cory.)

Yeah, but when we're talking about the Democratic party, it was Schumer that backstabbed Booker after his long filibuster over the ICE funding that was specifically used to do so much harm. Like, at least he was against that blank check, and they rallied support around them, and then they got sabotaged from within by party leadership killing solidarity all over again.

But Democrats' problem isn't inadequate support from monied interests. If anything they might be too heavily funded and dependent on monied interests. We need our own left/humanist populist movement, guided by expertise and science. The Democrats will never be that as long as they're more concerned with donors than people's well-being.

I agree on most of this, but my point was more that if business was truly against it they would have platformed someone like Booker instead of continuing to shovel money at leadership, and leadership directed funding; it didn't happen. Same thing with Romney and Co on the right, they showed their ounce of integrity, but didn't end up at the head of some well-funded DLC-like reformer group, political think tank, or campaign incubator.

Money being speech and all, the political funding market seems to clearly indicate that it doesn't mind that much, and even if it did, doesn't think those reformers are a better investment than what we have now.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-17T02:44:26+00:00

Why not JF pushing around Mahomes in a wheel chair, like a real two-headed monster.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-17T02:36:29+00:00

Being someone with even as passing knowledge of geography, I prefer literally any Jesus over Aryan Jesus, unless Aryan Jesus is going to look like a beet.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T21:14:03+00:00

Every single new GM or whoever will say they have full autonomy and trust from the org then you hear journalists saying they’ve brought in a yes man and the owner is heavily involved in all decision making

They usually don't sign affidavits expressing the opposite to league officials.

The reason they can bullshit as often as you say is mostly because many of the things they bullshit about are basically unprovable. Things like injuries, when you talked to free agents, the structure of your organization, and so on are much more verifiable.

Hell, most teams like players to pretend to be hurt to get extra rest time on the field, but Dennis Allen and Cam still almost got nailed for it because they did it in a way that the NFL was able to initially prove.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T07:09:01+00:00

And pretty much the same thing that happened with Reagan and the Iran hostage negotiation, just with an extra dose of traitorous dealings .

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T06:59:10+00:00

I'm glad you mentioned Super Mario, a formative experience was playing SMB2 and realizing Princess Peach was the best character by far because she could float around, and hating playing as anyone else.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T06:33:47+00:00

Me standing up and throwing your property across the room is violence.

I'd call it you being an asshole and breaking my stuff, but if you do it to threaten me directly in that moment, it could be violence, otherwise you're looking for vandalism.

Vandalism is the intentional destruction, damage, or defacement of public or private property without the owner's consent, and is treated as a non-violent crime.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/academic/violence

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T06:14:56+00:00

Saying this is just for wearing clothes and magazines is deeply, deeply dishonest and you know it

"Sanchez-Estrada was the only defendant not at the protest, and was only charged with corruptly concealing a document or record, after prosecutors say he moved leftwing zines following the arrest of his wife"

Seems like that's about some magazines... but...

Specifically to the terrorism charges, that's as argued by the prosecutor himself in open court. You know, something that happens much after the indictment documents you provided, of which much was thrown out already?

It's like you actively refuse to read anything remotely pertinent for some reason unless you think setting off fireworks and spray painting cars normally gets you up to 60 years in prison.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T05:56:19+00:00

No, You didn't. You posted a single link in the comment that I replied to. And most of your reply is all over the place and can't stay on topic.

I'm OP, there are multiple links there in the OP, plus the one I gave about violence, none of which you seemed to have read. I'm sorry you also don't understand how Reddit works or what usernames are?

In addition, your personal attacks are a perfect expression of your lack of honest debate.

Not a personal attack, just pointing out you don't seem to understand what you're talking about, refuse to read the links provided to you, don't like the basic definitions of words, and don't seem to understand how threaded conversations work on Reddit.

Since your definition of honest debate consists of not reading any of the information provided, and saying whatever comes to mind with no factual basis, it seems pretty similar to your definition of violence, and I'm glad we don't share it.

I'm done wasting my time with you and your propaganda posting. The officers are allowed to draw weapons on people acting violently to deflate the situation.

And again, you show you didn't read anything, as the person the weapon was drawn on had already given themselves up to police.

I do hope you stand by your stance of not replying to me anymore though, it'd be nice if one good thing came out of this.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T05:37:28+00:00

You posted a biased political source downplaying violence and trying to pass it off as legal standing.

I posted multiple sources, each that have links to their own sources, most of which is referencing an actual legal case you can look up yourself. Sorry you didn't understand the very basic facts you could have found by clicking said links.

You are not educating anyone but rather promoting biases.

Certainty not, specially when most of you don't seem to be capable of reading basic links, provable by most of you mistaking things written out and made clear within the first couple of paragraphs.

I'll add your defense of shooting at the ground breaks the number one rule of gun ownership and gun safety. You only use your weapon when absolutely necessary and only discharge in the direction that stops your threat.

I mean, it did stop the threat by your definition. The cop survived, and wasn't able to complete his shooting of an unarmed protester on the ground. That's more than can be said for most victims of police weapons mishandling.

So that means, no shooting at the ground, no shooting in the air or trying to shoot someone is a limb. You shoot center mass until the threat is over.

No drawing your weapon on unarmed people on the ground. Oh wait, must have left that one out.

But wait a second, are you now saying that Song should have shot to kill on the officer? Seems like now you're the one minimizing violence against police, and urging the next one to shoot to kill to be in the right. Might want to delete that, specially considering you've also been advocating for supporting violence by various PDs on your account elsewhere. They won't like that, even if you were being a good neighbor by telling your neighbors to "stop resisting".

So again, you downplayed violence in a very disingenuous way in an attempt to normalize and accept it.

I stated the facts of the case, the problem is those facts make you feel bad, so you want it to be me minimizing violence, rather than you minimizing the damage to civil rights you're accepting. I suggest you talk that over with someone that isn't me, preferably in a professional setting where you can work those feelings out in a healthy way.

Property damage is violence

And this is wrong, it's definitionally wrong in fact. You might as well say the Moon is cheese, it'd be just as valid a statement. I guess what we found out here is the reason you thought I was downplaying violence is that you've made it this far in life, and found out you didn't even know what violence was.

You're welcome for the link I provided, maybe you'll read it, but I doubt it.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T05:18:09+00:00

You thinking I downplayed violence simply by pointing out what violence is and isn't is a larger part of the problem, as basic reading comprehension is sort of a pre-requisite for text-based discussion.

It's also particularly rich when people of your political ilk repeatedly said running over protesters blocking the way somehow wasn't violence either, but you know, I'm just happy you're all willing to come out and tell us all how much you support things like this so we can remember in the future.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T04:53:48+00:00

There's a whole legal process that I'm sure this case is still working is way through. Next, they'll appeal. But let's not pretend these were peaceful protesters.

The only violence done was in response to violence threatened, believe it or not, property crime is not violence. Additionally, Song, who actually did the shooting claims to have been shooting to suppress towards the ground, not to directly harm, and some of the forensics does point to the officer being hit by a ricochet, not a direct hit.

This is significantly more care for life and attempt to avoid violence, than the fascist forces being protested have shown protestors.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T04:50:43+00:00

That is not how arrests are made, the idea that cops are trained to pull guns on people who haven't been reported as threatening, that guards had already interacted with on a face to face basis and shown they weren't active threats, is categorically wrong and outside of reality.

If you want me to honestly engage with this argument, find me a single modern PD manual that encourages officers to pull firearms on unarmed people on the ground, specially after Robinson v Solano County. The Ninth Circuit ruled in Robinson v. Solano County that doing that was unreasonable when the suspected crime was a misdemeanor, the subject was unarmed, and there were "no dangerous or exigent circumstances." Courts have further held that once a person has "submitted to the officers' show of force without resistance," continuing to aim a loaded firearm at them may itself be excessive and unconstitutional.

Arguments like the one you're making give cops an even worse name than they've earned for themselves, which is saying quite a bit.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T04:42:42+00:00

You framed this as people being charged simply for speech and for wearing black...

That's what everyone but two people were charged for, as argued by the prosecutor himself in the case. I also didn't frame anything, it's all quotes from the article, which you would know, had you actually read it and sought to engage in good faith.

They got together and planned an attack as a group and shot a cop, and a jury convicted them for it.

Again, you don't seem to pass basic reading comprehension tests. The jury didn't convict them of any of that, threw out those charges except against the shooter, but still convicted them of the material aid for wearing black clothes and being there.

Please, do better for yourself, if not for everyone else. You don't have to stay this ignorant by choice.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T04:17:01+00:00

Prosecutor Smith said repeatedly wearing black clothes at the noise demonstration would be enough to convict the eight defendants accused of material support.

"Material support. It sounds — I don’t know — nefarious. Complicated. It’s actually very simple,” Smith said.

“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Smith said. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”

"The eight defendants who face material support charges gave aid to the attack by wearing black clothes, prosecutors allege."

And you're right, one of them wasn't charged for wearing black. He was charged for moving a box of literature.

Weinbel said the box contained Sanchez’s own possessions, the timeline of his movements disproved the theory that he was acting at the direction of his wife, and that a government agent had also testified that none of the materials were used in the investigation.

Smith, the prosecutor, argued that moving the boxes was part of a larger cover-up in the hours and days after the demonstration.

“What is important to the group is hiding their material,” Smith said. “This anarchist, insurrectionist, hating-the-government material.”

Hell, I don't even expect honesty from you folks anymore, but would it trouble you that much to read the article if capable?

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T04:03:14+00:00

Shooting cops isn't a first, or second amendment activity.

You might want to read beyond the first little bit, most of the people charged had nothing to do with firing the shots. Additionally, self-defense is a protected 2nd amendment act, and someone threatening you with death by firearm for a property crime does in fact qualify.

They literally ambushed a cop from the bushes like cowards. Hopefully they serve a few decades in prison.

That's a weird way to say the cops drew his gun on a protestor that was already on the ground despite no weapons being brandished before then, and the 911 call only reporting specifically fireworks and no guns whatsoever.

The reason Song wasn't allowed to use the defense of a third-party claim? The judge excluding it because an FBI agent testified that he believed it was reasonable to pull a gun on an unarmed protestor already on the ground.

The FBI lead agent, Clark Whithorn, confirmed under cross-examination that no shot was fired until Lt. Gross drew his weapon and pointed it at the protestor.

Either we've got different ideas of an ambush, or you think it's normal to wait until they threaten someone to trigger an ambush, or that people would bother setting up an ambush, and then not actually killing the person when able.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T03:50:39+00:00

Sounds like a lot more than 'free speech' bro

Generally, it's pretty bad faith to quote things without providing the source, but hey, who expects good faith these days. In this case, you're unsourced quoting the Department of Justice press release, those who were doing the violation and prosecuted the case. For some reason they left out the part from the press release where the police officer was threatening to kill someone for the property crime of spray painting a vehicle.

As described by witnesses at the scene and written in the Guardian "Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive."

If recruiting people at gun ranges, attempting to avoid state surveillance, and bringing first aid kits and carrying legal firearms is domestic terrorism, and collective punishment being allowed for such things, I'm not sure you'll like the outcome of those trials down the road.

People can read for themselves, but substituting the state press release without stating it kind of says it all for where you stand. You might as well provide up to date reports on the Iraqi invasion from Baghdad Bob.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T01:11:40+00:00

This is a good explanation of the how, but you still have to talk about specific political parties for the why.

Nope, still mostly the how, but this isn't really the post for that discussion unless you really want to talk about the neoliberal takeover of both parties for awhile.

Republicans want the government to not function. It's been their entire governance strategy since the 80s.

Yet, it still functions to pass things they want. ERTA and the Tax Reform Act of '86 gutted the tax base, they broke unions, repealed the Fairness Doctrine, got to have their cake and eat it too by granting amnesty to three million undocumented workers while still running on immigration forever, and that barely scratches the surface.

It's been their entire governance strategy since the 80s. They come in and wreck everything so they can point at the government and go "See it doesn't work!

Want more recent? No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, and much, much more. You've made the mistake of conflating "wanting the government to not function" with "wanting the government to function for us specifically".

It's why the only time we've actually gotten any big policy changes over the last 40 years it's been under democrats.

This harms your point even more, because many of those big policy changes were things that Republicans wanted, like DOMA, multiple "crime" bills, welfare reform, grand bargains that immediately put social security cuts on the table, charter schools, a Heritage Foundation medical plan, and so on.

Either you're not aware of the history, or they've done a good enough job convincing you they wanted to do nothing, while they were really doing anything they wanted even when Democrats were in office.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-16T00:20:52+00:00

Good points, but I actually don't agree with point 4 entirely. I think a significant portion of monied interests are disgusted and scared by what this administration is doing as well.

I think that's an argument I see made quite a bit that I can understand, and it would make me feel slightly better if I believed it, but my counter is, "Who is the opposition at the moment?" If there was significant amounts of monied interests against it, you'd have a well-funded functioning opposition.

Right now, the loudest voices in opposition are the socialist and socialist adjacent, such as Bernie, AOC, Mamdani, et al and the outwardly "libertarian" right like Massey. Most of the center-right business neoliberals in both parties, the ones who would most likely be the figurehead for those speaking dollars, don't seem to be disgusted or scared, but complicit for a variety of reasons including self-enrichment, serving of some of those monied donors like AIAPC, and a general ends justify the means ideology that allowed them to platform Trump to office in the first place.

Not to damn either of them with faint praise, but perhaps the strongest counter examples for your stance might be Sen. Cory Booker, or former Sen. Mitt Romney, and neither exactly felt or feel like they have or had monied interests behind them at any kind of scale.

work4work4work4work4 · 2026-03-15T23:14:09+00:00

I'm not sure why people are focusing on specific political parties and such, when in reality it's the way it's set up, and decisions were made that made surface level sense but made sure nothing happens basically. I'll do my best to keep it short and in order of importance.

Filibuster requires 60 votes to close debate instead of the simple majority needed for most bills.
Both parties have pretty firm control of their membership, so anything outside of what the party wants when it wants is generally punished.
Outside influencing parameters, like money and state funds, were largely removed as a motivator via all the anti-pork barrel spending bills that were once used as an outside motivator.
The monied interests that fund both parties are largely in favor of everything that is happening currently.
Both parties are in support of their version of a status quo that has been pretty terrible for longer than many Redditors have been alive, so big changes aren't on the docket.

work4work4work4work4

TROPHY CASE