spit on my clit posted:this is true in general but it seems they're trying to fix that at least, so ya gotta give em props How on earth are they trying to fix that? The government just declared that the word Brexit shall not be spoken after January 31st, and their most beloved children's author has openly declared her belief that trans people aren't people. They are more loathesome than ever, and I'm glad the NHS will be destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
destroy the EU, free ireland and scotland. that's about it. britain has always been a sinking ship, that's why all british success stories are "well we got the hell out of britain and started making it big in some other country" So I'm not really saddened by the "impending doom" of britain. anyone there should already know by now to get the hell out of there, to wherever else they can go, and there's a lot of land so it's not like they don't have options. sometimes it's better to move to a better country instead of stagnating in the shithole you've been in your entire life. as for some children's author - who gives a poo poo? if you mean JK Rowling, the children her books were targeted towards are now grown adults who can tell her to gently caress off, and i'm certain that no kid these days cares about harry potter or her other books. im sure there's some people who think that there should be a bigger punishment for her than fading into absolute obscurity, but those people are fascists and should not be believed anyway. spit on my clit has a new favorite as of 01:43 on Dec 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
JollyBoyJohn posted:Because its not that easy or we'd all be doing it. Plenty people stream for months or years without having a significant enough audience. Its not just a case of "switch on camera, play game, get paid". Plenty people streaming on twitch right now playing obscure games with 5 viewers just because they want to. I've currently got a guy called MCanning playing Starcraft 2 on my telly, its not really something I'm watching intently but its good background noise when I'm getting ready for work in the morning. He probably makes around $3-4000 dollars a month from streaming but he also has to play Starcraft 2 for 8-12 hours a day which sounds horrific. I just get irrationally enraged by the arrows and clickbaiting on youtube. I know they do it because it makes money, but like all marketers, I get mad at them when I feel like they're trying to exploit me. It feels like when denny's or whoever starts posting memes on twitter. Yeah it probably works and increases sales, but it's obnoxious and makes me feel like i should not eat there just out of spite for doing it. My problem isn't them getting rich, it's just being exposed to their attempts to game the system. IMHO that should happen behind the scenes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 01:41
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:as for some children's author - who gives a poo poo? if you mean JK Rowling, the children her books were targeted towards are now grown adults who can tell her to gently caress off, and i'm certain that no kid these days cares about harry potter or her other books. It's not as ubiquitous as it was but Harry Potter stuff is still all over toy and book stores.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:It's not as ubiquitous as it was but Harry Potter stuff is still all over toy and book stores. Plus you can't really call a book that has its own major theme park attraction irrelevant. There are just as many young harry potter weirdos as there are formerly young harry potter weirdos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Also a bunch of the kids that grew up on it are now buying presents for their own kids / nieces and nephews.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:It's not as ubiquitous as it was but Harry Potter stuff is still all over toy and book stores. yeah and disney is reaaaaaaaaaaaally playing up star wars despite the fact that no child is going to give a poo poo about the toys, because star wars is not targeted at children. Doctor Spaceman posted:Also a bunch of the kids that grew up on it are now buying presents for their own kids / nieces and nephews. and the people who enjoyed her stuff as children are now grown adults who can just choose not to buy their kids/nephews/nieces these toys. that's the magic of capitalism, you can just choose not to buy something and the reason for not doing so doesn't matter
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
Yeah so my point was that kids are still reading Harry Potter but if you want to go into an unrelated defence of capitalism go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:yeah and disney is reaaaaaaaaaaaally playing up star wars despite the fact that no child is going to give a poo poo about the toys, because star wars is not targeted at children. maybe not children physically, but mentally....
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Yeah so my point was that kids are still reading Harry Potter but if you want to go into an unrelated defence of capitalism go nuts. and again i must say, they are not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:and again i must say, they are not. how do you explain the thousands of kids and teenagers wearing harry potter poo poo in harry potter universal studios land or whatever it's called every single day
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:how do you explain the thousands of kids and teenagers wearing harry potter poo poo in harry potter universal studios land or whatever it's called every single day because their parents dragged them there and said "you'll like it because i said so" because the parents themselves are trying to relive their youth. its like when a parent takes their kid to see, i dunno, the new star wars movie. the kid is completely uninterested because the previous recent movies were so loving boring, but the parent keeps saying "it'll be a good movie, quiet down" and then neither of them ends up enjoying the experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
I'll just never understand people that can't separate a work from the artist. Artists can be people with stupid opinions, that doesn't mean what they created is bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I'll just never understand people that can't separate a work from the artist. Artists can be people with stupid opinions, that doesn't mean what they created is bad. Especially since people are changing all the god damned time. A major life change isn't the sole province of artists or addicts or born-agains or near-miss survivors; spend enough time with anyone and you'll see them change and sometimes it's good and sometimes it's not. It is just as possible for a person to have been good, made a thing, and become bad as is the opposite, and in any case, there are many works that are independent of their artists' particular strains of badness unless one is going molecule hunting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:Especially since people are changing all the god damned time. A major life change isn't the sole province of artists or addicts or born-agains or near-miss survivors; spend enough time with anyone and you'll see them change and sometimes it's good and sometimes it's not. It is just as possible for a person to have been good, made a thing, and become bad as is the opposite, and in any case, there are many works that are independent of their artists' particular strains of badness unless one is going molecule hunting. I feel bad sometimes for wishing Stephen King had remained on cocaine to make the latter 3 parts of the Dark Tower series better. But he really should have. He wrote better while hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I'll just never understand people that can't separate a work from the artist. Artists can be people with stupid opinions, that doesn't mean what they created is bad. Personally, I just don't give a poo poo unless its something horrible like "ah, the person behind this is a pedophile or a murderer", at that point I don't think I'd want to keep reading something by someone that terrible. Pastry of the Year posted:there are many works that are independent of their artists' particular strains of badness unless one is going molecule hunting. you're right, but this is also SA, where every mole hill is a mountain and twitter is the heart of this planet i guess
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
My PHUO is that I thought he ended The Dark Tower series really well. Song of Susannah really sucked, but Wolves was OK and I actually liked the last book. 1. Wizard and Glass 2. The Waste Lands 3. The Gunslinger 4. The Dark Tower 5. Wolves of the Calla 6. Drawing of the Three 7. Song of Susannah
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:20
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I'll just never understand people that can't separate a work from the artist. Why should they?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:My PHUO is that I thought he ended The Dark Tower series really well. Song of Susannah really sucked, but Wolves was OK and I actually liked the last book. Song of Susannah at least had that grocery store shootout in the 70’s that was pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:My PHUO is that I thought he ended The Dark Tower series really well. Song of Susannah really sucked, but Wolves was OK and I actually liked the last book. I agree with your first statement, but not your ranking, at least for drawing of the three. Some parts did drag, but I think it deserves spot #4. It has super memorable parts like the lobstrosities, the plane scene with eddie, etc. I do skim through the bits where eddie won't shut up about henry, and I think the detta personality of susannah is very uninteresting, but it's such a key book in the series that I think I'd rank it much higher. Song of Susannah is just annoying though. I'd never skip it, but it annoys me to read and I hate that thing he did at the end of every chapter in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
Any ranking that doesn't put The Gunslinger first and Wizard and Glass last is obviously the work of a madman. The rest could really go in any order because the first book is good and Wizard and Glass is absolute garbage and the rest are... okay?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Any ranking that doesn't put The Gunslinger first and Wizard and Glass last is obviously the work of a madman. The rest could really go in any order because the first book is good and Wizard and Glass is absolute garbage and the rest are... okay? False. The Gunslinger is a good start but not great. In a vacuum it's bad. There is very little conflict, no resolution. Wizard and Glass is a very, very good western-style story. It is jarring in the progression of the books, but it's good. Anyone who claims this book is worse than things like song of susannah or wolves is delusional. It's just wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
It’s easier to separate the art from the artist when the artist isn’t still profiting off of the art.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:False. The Gunslinger is a good start but not great. In a vacuum it's bad. There is very little conflict, no resolution. Wizard and Glass has a pretty sharp divide, opinion wise, that seems to mostly be based around when you read it. If you read it when it came out, or relatively close to it, you likely hate it because it didn’t move the plot forward and was the last DT book to come out for years. If you read it closer to 5/6/7 that was less of a problem and it’s easier to appreciate the western story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Why should they? because you look like a child when you can't do something that simple
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:The Gunslinger is a good start but not great. In a vacuum it's bad. There is very little conflict, no resolution. Roland straight up slaughters every man, woman and child in Tull - and then quite deliberately allows the new kid he adopted to drop to his death rather than be delayed in pursuit of vengeance. The conflict in the book is a moral one between Roland's character and the reader's. Also I'll have a Big Mac and fries, please. aardwolf has a new favorite as of 07:05 on Dec 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
McNuggets were superior when they were made from pink slime instead of breast meat
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 08:12
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:It’s easier to separate the art from the artist when the artist isn’t still profiting off of the art. Which is why its funny when people say "x is bad because creator of x is bad" when what they really mean is "creator of x is more affluent than me".
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:26
|
|
spit on my clit posted:because you look like a child when you can't do something that simple No, if you choose to separate the art from the artist, that's fine. It's one valid way of interacting with art. But it's not the only way. It's not inherently better. It's a choice you make because it's easier than having to deal with moral issues about supporting artists who are lovely people. And that's fine. But it's not a choice everyone has to make.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:No, if you choose to separate the art from the artist, that's fine. It's one valid way of interacting with art. But it's not the only way. It's not inherently better. It's a choice you make because it's easier than having to deal with moral issues about supporting artists who are lovely people. And that's fine. But it's not a choice everyone has to make. i can choose to call you a bitch
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:46
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:No, if you choose to separate the art from the artist, that's fine. It's one valid way of interacting with art. But it's not the only way. It's not inherently better. It's a choice you make because it's easier than having to deal with moral issues about supporting artists who are lovely people. And that's fine. But it's not a choice everyone has to make. Its just not interesting to hear people express that choice. Like excuse me i heard a good song on the radio, better check if the artist has 100% moral soundness before i dance to it? No, just no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 13:05
|
|
JollyBoyJohn posted:Its just not interesting to hear people express that choice. Stuff like new criticism and The Death of the Author were intentionally extreme reactions to the prevailing theories of art criticism at the time. You don't have to know all about Beethoven's life and cultural milieu before you can have an opinion about his fifth symphony. In fact, by treating it like it fell out of a wormhole from another dimension and exists purely of itself with no context at all, you can have a better opinion of it. There was genuine ideas and theories behind "The author is dead". And most importantly, it was not a scientific rule of art. It was a way of seeing art, a new alternative the standard old way. People could adopt it or not, try to come up with their own synthesis of the old or new, or whatever. But nowadays when people bring that stuff up, it's not part of a larger philosophy of art. When someone says you have to separate the art from the artist, they always just mean "yes I know the artist is an appalling person but I like the wizards story so leave me alone". It is purely a defensive gesture. You aren't expressing your opinion of how art should be interpreted, you're saying leave me alone I just want to consume without thinking about stuff I don't like to think about. Which is also fine, that's totally acceptable. Everyone has problematic faves. But don't say "You must separate the art from the artist" as if you're following Roland Barthes' footsteps and reaching a truer interpretation of the work. Just be confident enough to admit that there are things you like enough that you want to continue to consume them mindlessly. We all do it!
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
That's all way too smart for me to understand
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 13:30
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Stuff like new criticism and The Death of the Author were intentionally extreme reactions to the prevailing theories of art criticism at the time. You don't have to know all about Beethoven's life and cultural milieu before you can have an opinion about his fifth symphony. In fact, by treating it like it fell out of a wormhole from another dimension and exists purely of itself with no context at all, you can have a better opinion of it. There was genuine ideas and theories behind "The author is dead". And most importantly, it was not a scientific rule of art. It was a way of seeing art, a new alternative the standard old way. People could adopt it or not, try to come up with their own synthesis of the old or new, or whatever. Why does it have to be mindless? Why can't it ust be that someone can disagree with an artist, but still like their work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Luckily for everyone, Harry Potter's not good anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
I never read them, but I watched the first movie and it seemed OK. Just not anything I'd be interested in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Why does it have to be mindless? Why can't it ust be that someone can disagree with an artist, but still like their work? It's also possible to flip the script on that one which is part of the problem. It becomes "if you consume this person's art then you obviously support whatever they believe." When really I might not even know what they believe. I can't vet everything a person has ever done. If I see something as if it dropped out of a vacuum and like it my first thought is going to be "I like this thing" and not "I need to learn more about whoever created it before deciding to like this thing."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Goldfinger is not as good a movie as either of the films that came before it. From Russia with Love is a classic spy movie, and Dr. No, while less of a spy movie than a thriller, is also a superior film. I don't exactly dislike Goldfinger; it has a lot of the classic moments everyone remembers. But Bond spends most of the movie getting his rear end handed to him and I prefer the earlier Connery films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
Its weird how much better Goldeneye is than ever single other Bond film all of which manage to be too dry, slow and serious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Goldfinger is not as good a movie as either of the films that came before it. From Russia with Love is a classic spy movie, and Dr. No, while less of a spy movie than a thriller, is also a superior film. I don't exactly dislike Goldfinger; it has a lot of the classic moments everyone remembers. But Bond spends most of the movie getting his rear end handed to him and I prefer the earlier Connery films. Is that why Goldmember was so bad?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 20:46
|
|