A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
Populism Updates @PopulismUpdates Tell me your most radical position that cannot be placed on the left-right political spectrum
Admiral Snaccbar @Chris Mench Serving shrimp with the tail still on when it's already mixed into something (pasta, rice, etc) is insane.
Just eat the tail
Blindly supporting the Two-Party System, and bullying those who don't, is anti-American. It will only lead to fascism.
EDIT - @chaogomu provided quality information on how to actually work with US voting and how to make a difference. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and https://equal.vote
As far as I can tell the incrementalist argument goes like this:
No one supports the two party system. We recognize it exists and work within it to change it. But it's designed to not change, so it's hard.
Stomping your feet and voting third party for president is performative at best, disingenuous at worst.
Local elections, vote third party if you want.
Is that bullying? I lost track of the line between facts and harassment.
the truth!
Hicks and Newt had to die in the beginning of Alien 3 in order for the film to thematically even be an Alien film.
At their heart, the films are about Ripley being alone, more in common with the titular alien than with her termporary allies. She's an outsider in her crew. She's a civilian among marines. She's a woman among convicts. She's lost her child, she's lost 57 years of her life. The Alien is her only real touchstone now, and in a way that is very expressly shown in the films, that becomes a kind of "relationship" in itself. She's closer to the alien than she is to the people who surround her.
If Hicks and Newt survived and were part of Alien 3, it takes that away and makes it an ensemble cast, which thematically doesn't fit, and (I think) it's one of the reasons that a lot of the new Alien films just don't feel like Alien films; they're missing that key thematic ingredient. Ripley is a tragic character, doomed to battle alone against the only thing she has left in her life.
Aliens also didn't thematically fit with the first Alien. As the title indicates, there are many aliens not an alien that was alone. Burke was also a civilian, so Ripley was not the lone civilian. And at the end of the movie she was not alone unlike in the first one. Well I guess Jonesy made it out ok, so she wasn't alone at the end of the first one either.
Aliens was not thematically consistent with the first one and that's what made it great. There really isn't a mystery about the Alien and how dangerous it is after the first one so trying to recreate it wouldn't work. So instead of working class people being forced into a situation they didn't understand and weren't prepared for, we see a group of well armed soldiers going into a situation they were briefed on. This time the humans are going to kick ass! Except no, they get their asses to them. And themes about motherhood can be added (both for Ripley and the Aliens).
Alien 3 wasn't entirely thematically consistent either. I do remember it exploring some themes about religion (it's been a long time since I watched it tho) which is something the previous movies didn't go into. Also Ripley dies at the end which inconsistent with the theme of survival.
To me story is more important than themes anyway. If Ripley has to be alone at the beginning of every movie it makes the story of her character really boring.
Are Ripley and the alien in a situationship?
The Xenomorph has been the only constant in her life throughout the entire franchise. Everyone else is temporary. So basically...yes...in so much as a nemesis can be a situationship.
I defend this position. Still, they should have given those characters better deaths.
they should have given those characters better deaths
That I absolutely agree with. They did 'em dirty with how they took them out.
Execute this man as an enemy of the state.
When driving you are making things more dangerous and less efficient by waving people in. If it is your right of way take it.
Be predictable, not polite.
Misunderstanding "right of way" is half the problem.
Right of way is ability to make a road, or the road itself by extension. You can't have the right of way - it's usually the government's - and you can't give it away. This is why wording is consistently who must yield the right of way, and not who has the right of way.
If it's a driver's turn to act, they are obligated to act. It's not their option or right to act.
Indeed, in the boating world, the words are "stand-on" or "burdened" vessel, which makes it clear that the vessel that should continue its course has the obligation to do so under the collision regulations. The "give way" vessel should alter its course or intentions to "keep clear." Nobody — nobody! — has the "right of way."
In my city there is a very popular good samaritan trap on the main drag into town, and I am waiting for the day something nasty happens at that particular parking lot entrance, so then they maybe redesign that section of the street or something.
When someone does not like garlic bread, Allah Willing, they shall know no happiness, and shall not live long.