I’m just sorry that Brie Larson had LINES in Endgame.
She can’t seem to speak without coming across as a smug, self-satisfied с*nt.
I mean, she only had four speaking scenes, and look at this:
I did like the scene where she arrived late to the fight and destroyed Thanos’ ship.
As I have ALWAYS said, Captain Marvel SHOULD HAVE BEEN there, but NOT (a) SJW Carol Danvers and (b) not Carol Danvers at all.
They needed Mar-Vell.
Carol Danvers Ms. Marvel got her powers from Captain Marvel, but she was never the female version of him.
She wasn’t Kree, never had the Nega Bands, never had the Cosmic Awareness.
And she never, ever had the STORY DEPTH.
In the House of M storyline, when Wanda rewrote reality to make Magneto basically king of the world, Mutants a kind of aristocracy (which was a pretty good world, actually—Magneto makes a MUCH better king that Doctor Doom), they decided in that alternate world ...
that Carol went by Captain Marvel and was the world’s most beloved super-hero. It was a neat story concept.
BUT.
Somewhere along the line Marvel got into their minds that Carol Danvers REALLY WAS or COULD BE “the world’s most popular superhero.”
But she can’t. The character, while a not bad when written by Chris Claremont—JUST. DOES. NOT. HAVE. THE. DEPTH.
She could have worked as a member of the Guardians of the Galaxy.
She was a member of the Starjammers, actually.
And the modern, humorous version of the Guardians of the Galaxy is much more like Chris Claremont’s Starjammers than, say, the actual (classic) Guardians of the Galaxy.
Don’t get me wrong. I like them.
Drax is … wrong … but the new version of the character is just so goddamn hilarious that I’m content.
The old Drax was a humorless bloodthirsty killing machine zombie whose only purpose was to DESTROY THANOS.
Drax the Destroyer was pretty one-dimensional.
I like the old Drax, but love the new one. He fits the TONE of the new Guardians of the Galaxy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As Putnam notes, the fact/value dichotomy fails because it never manages to actually distinguish the two entirely, due to a kind of necessary entanglement (or kinds) between putative "facts" and "values."
What we have is a situation of distinction where in some facts are not values, some facts are values, some values are facts, and some values are not facts.
What we do not have is a fact/value dichotomy which amounts to a metaphysical dualism.
This is one of my rules. I use language quite carefully. When someone response to something I have said by calling it "word salad," nothing is lost by blocking them.
There is no possibility they are being an honest interlocutor.
Anyone with more that a child's level of acquaintance with theology should understand that talk about God will always be quite unlike talk about anything else, unlike talk about any creature (which everything but God is).
This does *seem like* a huge incoherence in transgender ideology.
It seems as if it is absurd on its face to say that children can consent to medical "transition" and a lifetime of medicalization and sterilization, but not consent to smoking a cigarette or having a beer.
An honest atheist (if there were such a thing) might say that he does not believe in an uncreated creator. No!—he must pretend that the concept of an uncreated creator is nonsense!
As if everything that does an action need be susceptible to such an action!
A lot of picture-thinkers will form an image of what’s being talked about and then think something that only belongs to the image belongs to the idea itself. Which in turn causes them to miss/reject other cases that instantiate the idea but don’t fit their particular image.
Descartes gives an example of the limits of substituting pictures/the imagination from concepts/the intellect:
Consider a chiliagon, a thousand-sided figure with equal sides. Conceptually, this is easy to understand, but it is impossible to picture clearly and distinctly.