hopesdead

Especially with true crime, the way things are presented could alter how the content is perceived. For example, Making a Murder took time to walk the audience through the entire trial (I’m not going to debate the perception the film makers left out important facts that influence the narrative).

On the flip side a more recent series like This Is the Zodiac Speaking, only focused on one suspect, never questioned the testimony of the children as being faulty memories or fact checked well known details about the crimes mentioned. My point is, this documentary was on a subject that was better well known and didn’t aim to present the children as telling their own side of events; it straight up makes the assumption what they said must be true because they personally knew ALA. On top of this, they featured Robert Graysmith, the author of the book Zodiac which is well known for being factually inaccurate, and doesn’t challenge his research. And at the end, the film makers failed to get the DNA test results for a test they commissioned. What deadline existed that they couldn’t tell the viewer what the result was?

Sorry, that documentary in particular irritates me for how factually inaccurate and onesided it was. My overall point is that true crime in particular seems to just be looking for whatever will get views. Not a lot of the documentaries that have come out in this period have produced well made series or ethically honest content. Is it entertainment or is it bringing awareness to what occurred or the people affected?

The problem I have is the quality of the film making. Regardless of the content, if it isn’t well made, probably wouldn’t see through the whole thing.

Wow, this is exactly what someone who 1. doesn’t practice real Evangelical Christianity would say 2. would believe not having studied the most basic of United States history.

The separation of Church and State is exactly that. The Colonist came to North American because they didn’t like how the Church of England was being operated. In practice they might not have wanted other religious groups to have such freedom but if you try to take the Bill of Rights and Constitution at face value, then you as a person in the United States government have no reason to judge them for being a non-Christian. Much like how I much challenge you to prove you belong to a well regulated militia when you own a gun.

100 Baby Challenge failed.

I’m sure we are wanting this for very different reasons.

Severance

I have been a Trekkie long before I joined.

Pretty much my thing.

It was restarted in like the last year.

What’s your take on Cellular from 2004 that starred Kim Basinger, Jason Statham, Chris Evans and Eric Christian Olsen?

I’d send them that clip of Will Arnet being corrected on LEGO Masters about the grammatical plural of LEGO. That would be my reply. At least criticize them with proper grammar.

It comes with the powers.

My dream: to be that person who gets to yell “It’s Morphin time!” and save the day.

deleted by creator

Famously, Trump, a draft dodger, used it during his 2016 election campaign.

Once Springsteen spoke against it and announced support for Clinton, Trump’s own supporters at rallies booed the song.

I must be mistaken. I thought the EU had made it illegal. Finland is part of the EU last I checked.

Saying “pro-Gaza” in my opinion is code for bigot. At this point there is nothing you can do to justify why those people have to be killed. No reason to justify why they can’t have land to live on. No reason why caring about fellow humans is a the wrong side.

If you are defending the right for the state of Israel to commit genocide (which apparently isn’t the worst crisis on this planet according to a BBC kyron from April I saw quoting the UN; it was about Sudan I believe) by continuing to wipe out Palestinian people, for existing, you are not a good person.

Therefore, switching pro-Hamas to pro-Gaza is literally acknowledging that they are no longer covering up the lie. These people used to lump everyone in with Hamas when there is historical evidence that the Palestinian people are not a monolith which supported the terror group. In fact there is historical evidence that politicians in Israel have always meant for the two groups to be equated. All the label changing does is tell you that they have hatred for people living in Gaza.

The same applies to Israel and the Jewish people. Just because someone does not agree with the actions of the Israeli government and/or military, does not mean they have hatred towards Jewish people. That unfairly puts actual Jewish people into a group of antisemites. Being anti-Israeli ≠ antisemitism. Being anti-Jewish = antisemitism.

I really wish the world could be a place where humans were respected as individuals who should exist because they are all different. Instead history shows that lots of us believe humans should only be respected as individuals because they are the same. No. We should respect each other because we are different. That doesn’t mean I need to like you or accept what you do as a person. But your existence should be seen as beautiful. I should be able to celebrate the fact you are different from me in many ways. We don’t have to get along but you as a person belong here. No one should tell you that your race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sex, gender, political beliefs, etc. mean your kind should cease to exist. I’m not saying that you need to love the bigot that lives next door, but that you can respect that they exist and that there are many more people who are uniquely different.

IDIC

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations

That is only if they catch fire.

But they sold $43 million in 72 hours! /s

Yikes! I didn’t realize it would be considered genocide.

That wasn’t what I read. The specific words were “legally non-existent” as in they don’t exist. It could be gender fraud is what was implied but not how it was explained.