James

What I'm suggesting would be entirely voluntary (unlike national libraries requiring copies of all books published listed in their country, for example), so I don't really think it's a freedom of speech or expression issue. Returning to the Disney and WB examples, these companies are already either disowning their objectionable archives or couching them in caveats, so they would be no more suppressed than they already are; they'd just be available through more ethical means (in my estimation). The charity idea's also good, though I do feel there is a certain ethical simplicity in removing the rights owners from the process entirely. Anita's point about it implying a post-racist world is interesting. I'm trying to work out how exactly I think that should inform things. Anyway, great episode. I very much echo Björn's* sentiments above. * I insist on the diacritic.

This suggestion probably doesn't alleviate all of your concerns, but with regard to the monetary angle, how about hosting things somewhere like Archive.org? That's a project set up specifically for cultural archival, and is, as far as I'm aware, funded completely non-commercially. Rights owners wouldn't profit at all from nefarious works, and they would be available as cultural artefacts in a relatively neutral and academic setting that wouldn't, for example, particularly promote those works as rad fun things that everyone can enjoy. They could still include any explanatory preambles they saw fit – cultural context and all that.

Simple though it is, I was quite pleased with this one: Anyone could do it, obviously, but I like it.

AND he seems really nice and fun AND he has engaging enthusiasm for all sorts of cool stuff AND he's skilled and fit and accomplished without filling me with bitter resentment, which is my usual reaction to people making more of themselves than I am (i.e. everyone). In short, I kind of platonically love him.The Thumbs are OK I guess. But man, Drew Scanlon. What a dreamboat. Oh, and congratulations Grayson.

i.e. half a pint.

I'm in tears. That's too perfect. Why isn't it longer? Is there more? Someone could totally make an act out of that. Or at least a mid-set gimmick.

I think for me the most enduring thing about that film was the sense of domestic menace towards the beginning. I found it very intense and unsettling in a way more fantastical things rarely are. I should watch it again. Or if I want to completely depress myself, Eden Lake. I don't tend to do anything at all for Halloween, but I did spend one Christmas Eve watching Martyrs and drinking ginger wine. Last Halloween i was invited to a party up in Birmingham, but I was unclear in the costume situation, and dressing up is not something I feel at all confident about (which renders me boring and a spoilsport), so I ended up with this stupid fucking thing that I absolutely detested in a room almost entirely comprised of strangers, so I drank too much punch too quickly and ended up throwing up bright red despair into my friend's toilet. Being 29 at the time, I felt I was a bit old for that. That said, it sounds worse than it actually was.

Wasn't this thread created to get a bunch of distracting bullshit out of the feminism thread? That way discussion could progress without all the "yes but" nonsense at every turn. At least, that's how I understood it.

I don't see what the problem is. Trustworthiness is a simple scalar variable that values get added to and subtracted from, much like moral standing and health. It's a perfectly straightforward game life mechanic. [uNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD SYMBOL FOR SARCASM]

I just followed you and under "similar accounts" it listed Chipotle UK. Is this an accurate assessment?

The post definitely said it was deleted, but now it's back. I wish I'd taken a screenshot.

If someone burps then says "pardon me" (or similar), my dad will always, without fail, respond with "grunted". He has a bunch of other dad humour to him, but it's mostly small things like that rather than full-fledged jokes, and a lot of it's family-specific.

I was going to post about that. I suppose it doesn't actually say who deleted it, but I don't see why Social Justice Gnome would have.

Another not-strictly-feminism-related aside (ignore at will): You might want to read The Net Delusion by Evgeny Morozov. It's been a while since I read it, and I'm far from the most politically astute of readers, but from what I remember one of the major themes was that a lot of the characteristics and principles which supposedly make the Internet a force for liberation are completely blind, and make it just as effective a tool for oppression. As you say, it's just as easy to leak a innocent person's personal details as it is a corrupt politician's crimes. Incidentally, it also includes an interpretations of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World that I found quite interesting. Roughly speaking, where Nineteen Eighty-Four describes something similar to soviet communist propaganda, Brave New World depicts government-mandated hedonism that is perhaps closer to how inhabitants of the modern Western world can be manipulated. And not unrelated to this apparent death of adulthood, I suppose.

Good point. I guess I must be kind of out of touch with the Internet. Sounds pretty stupid.

This is super petty, but this part of their manifesto seems to be opening them up to a whole load of spam and other hugely distracting shit: I mean, I get that they want a clear and pure statement of purpose, but ultimately that's unrealistic. You need flexible moderation, driven by policy, sure, but able to react to whatever weird stuff the Internet can throw at you. Unless you want the comments to basically be 4chan, which I suppose would be appropriate. Or the comments might just be dead because the site fails, but that's a different matter. But if they got inundated with advertising bots, that would be pretty counter to manifesto item number one (although not a direct contradiction, I suppose). I don't know, perhaps they'll be lucky and there won't be a problem, but that's way too bold a promise to make. It reminds me of a youthful inclination for dogma and absolutes, unsullied by life's burden of pragmatism. Not that I know anything about the ages of these people, which I'm sure is diverse, but it makes me think of the confidence of a university student who's definitely worked out all the answers. Probably I'm reading far too much into it.

Which is pretty much what he's up to himself. "Sure, the New Yorker and several independent sources claim they have a world-class fact-checking department, but I know that the article they posted was full of falsehoods, so it must not be a real one."

From memory, 2 and 5 have already been posted. (They're still appreciated, though.) I love this thread.

The thing I always worry about in those cases, though, is that bystanders take withdrawal from conversation as admission of defeat. What I quite liked about that particular example was that quite a few different people were posting links and calling him out on his nonsense, so it didn't all fall on one person to weather his bullshit. Distributing the effort seems like the way to go.

Invited!

I do find myself relating more and more things to the US' deification of the individual (which is a generalization, of course). I mean, I'm all for individual choice and freedom, but I think if you place it above all other values it can lead to strange things. While I do think the constant claims of logical fallacy are in this case lazy and little more than a distraction, I'm not sure how distinct "disregarding a conclusion" would appear from challenging someone to restate their argument without fallacies (particularly on Twitter), which I think is valid. People should hopefully be able to restructure their arguments without the fallacies if the conclusion is true. I will concede that doing so could be awkward in a busy Twitter conversation, though. That all makes it sound like I'm arguing for that Bossy Chris guy. I'm not. He's a cretin. He demands such rigour from his opponents, but is incredibly loose and inconsistent with his own demands once they're met. I just can't decide how much of it is idiocy and how much of it is deliberate time- and energy-wasting.

https://www.hover.com/domains/results?q=ello.cool

Fear.

I've furnished you both with delightful codes.

:tup: