Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men “were men”) have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.
Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men “were men”) have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.
While I’d personally argue that the quality of the character development, writing, and storytelling in the show doesn’t even achieve the level of “fine”, you’re right in that 1) people should be allowed to enjoy things in peace and 2) RoP in particular attracts criticism which is often hyperbolic. At the same time, however, there should also be the freedom to honestly critique a piece of media without being labeled as a hater, obsessive fanboy, or a neckbeard, etc. Especially when dealing with an IP as treasured as Tolkien’s.
Whether you find this article excessive in its criticism or not, the writer makes the very valid point that the media landscape today is becoming increasingly saturated with this 'memberberries/nostalgia/callback type of storytelling, along with the constant stream of prequels and sequels based on this formula. People are growing tired of it, and Rings of Power has it deep in its bones.
For a good examination of the showrunners’ over-reliance on referencing the Jackson movie trilogy in lieu of interesting, original storytelling, I highly recommend this YouTube video. I think it really gets to the core of why so many people find RoP frustrating or disappointing as a show in its own right, let alone as a Tolkien adaptation.
Hard to argue with him about the JJ-Abramsification of all things, or the perplexing fact that modern audiences appear to lap it up.
Watching season one of RoP felt undeniably reminiscent of watching The Force Awakens and almost hearing the audible *ding as yet another callback got checked off the list. It’s not art any more; it’s just content to be consumed.
All true, but that doesn’t disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.
Yes but the difference is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that prolonged exposure to RF waves might possibly cause some harmful effects. The WHO didn’t categorize radio frequency radiation as a potential carcinogen based on no evidence at all:
https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
The possibility of there being a link was not absurd, per se.
To be fair, the evidence about a link between cell phone radiation and cancer has been inconclusive for quite some time. After all, a series of inconclusive or null results doesn’t mean there is categorically no link – it could equally mean that more research is needed.
That said, I do agree that if there were a casual link in this case then it would have made itself apparent by now, given the huge increase in cell phone usage over the past few decades.
Ear buds or IEMs typically have a much higher sensitivity than full sized headphones. The higher the output power of your PC’s headphone out, the louder your earbuds will be at any given volume %.
There isn’t anyway around this except to manually change the volume whenever you use your earbuds.
They allowed the family of an Israeli hostage on stage. Why not afford Palestinian Americans the same courtesy to have one of their own represented? Hell, they could have stood alongside the hostage’s family to show solidarity and hope for peace in the future.
The Uncommitted movement did everything the “right way” – they went through the official channels and offered the DNC a list of speakers and gave them permission to vet the speech however they wanted. But apparently that was still too big of an ask.
It’s a perfectly good source. Is there anything about their argument that you find unsound, or is it simply because it makes you uncomfortable?
I’m not advocating either way, although the horrors I’ve seen committed in Gaza are on a whole other level than anything I’ve witnessed before.
I wouldn’t blame anyone who votes third party, or even sits this one out.
I’m not advocating either way, although the horrors I’ve seen happening in Gaza are on a whole other level than anything I’ve witnessed before.
I wouldn’t blame anyone who votes third party, or even sits this one out
Sorry, that’s completely wrong. Israel is still extremely reliant on the US military hardware – tanks, planes, missiles, guns, you name it. The vast majority of the bombs being dropped on Gaza come from the US, also.
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/04/1242911786/a-closer-look-at-u-s-military-support-for-israel
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/11/us/israel-gaza-bombs.html
Also, the Biden administration merely delayed one shipment of 2,000 lb bombs. Netanyahu claimed that the Biden administration was holding back more, but this was just a PR move. The US is still happily sending tank engines, planes, guns, and smaller bombs to Israel.
Al in all, the Biden administration has done very little to effectively restrain Netanyahu. The “bear hug” strategy has been an unmitigated failure.
Huh, not paywalled for me but here’s an archived version anyway:
Smacking a muslim woman protesting a genocide on the head with a WE LOVE JOE sign is a very specific type of irony.
Did any of the main news channels in the US even cover this panel? I haven’t seen any.
The media and online punditry seem far more happy to obsess over a few Hamas-flag-waving protesters outside than to listen to experienced doctors relay the horrors they saw in Gaza. What a shocker.
An arms embargo in some form is literally the only leverage the US has that could change Netanyahu’s mind, at this stage. Personally, I don’t think Kamala has the guts for it.
… at a police association, of all places 🤦♂️
Absolutely. Add capping campaign spending, overturning Citizens United, and making it easier for alternative political parties to get on the ballot to that list, too.
Except Kamala crumpled under pressure and dropped her support of a fracking ban and M4A.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/14/kamala-harris-changes-policy-positions/
These days, no one knows what she stands for. Her campaign seems happy to be riding on pure vibes for the time being.
According to this YouGov poll of least <> most trusted news sources , CNN lands bang in the middle of the pack. So not as bad as FOX, but not as high as PBS or ABC.
As for my own 2¢, all the US cable news channels are varying degrees of bad. Best to avoid, generally speaking.