Wow, look everyone: the guy who has repeatedly tried and failed to make films starring Gina Carano that have literally no purpose other than to be anti-woke, has an opinion about an actually good film. I can't wait to see this.
Again, Ben, that's how murder mysteries work. They misdirect. But the thing is, there actually ARE clues to a lot of this stuff planted early on for observant viewers. Again, a trope of the genre. How is any of this a complaint?
Ahhh, so THIS is the real reason you're so offended by the film. Not any of that bullshit stuff above. You were just trying to come up with other apolitical reasons so this would just look like one of many grievances.
I mean, if you've followed Elon Musk's actual career, Ben, yes, this is literally how he got successful. Investing in smart people then pushing them out and taking credit. He literally won the right to be called a "Tesla founder" in a lawsuit, when he wasn't one.
Ben Shapiro is aghast at the idea that a film would push the radical idea that sometimes, stupid people end up being rich and successful and the people whose accomplishments made them rich get shafted. But that's true of tons of billionaires, not just Musk.
Dude, were you paying attention to the plot AT ALL? The point was all of Bron's friends owed literally their whole careers to him. Two of them, Duke and Birdie, were canceled for saying idiotic shit, and he saved them. And he was bankrolling the governor's political campaign.
This is just pathetic. Ben sounds like a high-schooler trying to half-ass his way through a book report when he hasn't read the source material. Only here it's worse, because he DID see the source material, he just understood absolutely nothing about it.
Anyway, go and stream #GlassOnion if you braved the spoilers in this thread but haven't seen it yet, because it is fantastic, trenchant, insightful, and wildly fun. Something exactly zero of Ben Shapiro's forays into popular media have ever even been close to being.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is one of the stupidest cultural issues we fight over each year.
Like, nothing is stopping you from putting out a Nativity scene instead of Santa and his reindeer, and spending the day praying in Jesus' name. And those who want to do that, do that.
Frankly, a huge chunk of the people who say in polls they want the holiday to emphasize Jesus more go out and get a tree and lights and presents and get hammered on nog, and don't *really* want to change how they celebrate things. So who gives a crap. Just celebrate how you want.
While we're on the subject, Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, he wasn't even born in winter at all. European Christians just started saying he was as a compromise with Celtic & Germanic pagans so they could still do Yule festivals as long as they prayed to Jesus while doing it.
Okay, I finally went through the entire list of "problematic words" from Stanford. And oh, do I have some thoughts. s.wsj.net/public/resourc…
Okay, I agree we shouldn't be flippant about calling people "addicts," but to eliminate the word "addicted" entirely is stupid. People do not become "devoted" to heroin.
This is true! It originated in World War I. But nobody uses "basket case" as a slur for amputees in the modern world. Words evolve.
I'm perfectly fine including overweight women as part of body positivity. Not all overweight women are that way because of unhealthy behaviors and there's still a lot we don't understand about the complexities of weight gain and loss.
...is at this weird new movement of people who say "there is no such thing as good and bad foods, that is offensive." No, science says there are plenty of bad foods. We literally made hydrogenated oils illegal because there is no safe dose of them. And there are indisputably...
...foods of lower nutritional value than others. You can acknowledge that eating poorly isn't a moral failing and our country's food system subsidizes and forces poor people into bad dietary habits, AND acknowledge such dietary habits are in fact bad.
Here's my take. There is nothing inevitable about equilibrium in the U.S. political system, but the fact that we've had such a streak of precariously even balance of power for decades is the reason why partisan polarization is so high.
For most of this country's history, the norm was that one party would control the presidency, or Congress, for decades — and the party in power would moderate to stave off internal divisions, while the party out of power would moderate in return for a seat at the table.
Today, with expanded voting rights and much more diverse demographics, it's harder for one party to get a hammerlock on power for generations at a time like they used to... there are simply far more coalitions than there used to be, all shifting alliances over time.
This is a cartoonish caricature of the progressive position.
Progressives have all kinds of debate over how best to deal with these issues. The one thing they do hold firm on is: doctors and patients, not politicians, are the best people to make these choices.
Another problem with @jonathanchait's position here is that it misses the single biggest fact trans children, supportive families, and progressives highlight about this issue: it is hard, bordering on impossible, for many people to access gender-affirming medical care AT ALL.
It's very similar to the breathless rhetoric over "late-term abortion." We're presupposing a fictional universe in which this procedure is wildly common, tons of people request it on a whim for no good reason, and doctors never do their due diligence or practice informed consent.