Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

[comhcinc]

Information for the outrage blogs out there. Right now I am living on the south side of Atlanta and working on the north side. As such I get to drive right down I75 during rush hour. Today I was stuck for a couple of minutes in front of Georgia Tech. They had a sign advertising season tickets for their sport teams.

Football season tickets. 35 dollars per game.

Men's basketball season tickets. 20 dollars per game.

Women's basketball season tickets. 60 dollars.

You're welcome.

[Za-zen]

You see the same psychological processes applied in current politics and nigh all complex interpersonal diplomacy, that were applied by the Nazi Ideologues in Germany.

You don't just come out on day one and declare that a group of people are our enemy and need to be exterminated in gas chambers. You walk your populace through to that acceptance through "creeping normalization". It is engineered.

Gay marriage for example would have been unthinkable in Ireland 20 years ago! It wasn't that people got smarter, more consistent in their logic, or more fervent in their demand for equality. The movement for equal marriage rights for homosexuals normalized the idea through creep.

1 You could convince people to decriminalize homosexuality, but not accept it, so decriminalize it.
2 You could get people to accept private homosexuality, but not public
3 you get people to accept public homosexuality, but not state recognized
4 You get people to accept extension of limited partnership status state recognized
5 You get full blown equality of marriage.

Going from one to five without the intervening normalization was impossible. Through creeping normalization a regime can really achieve any goal it wishes, people rarely object to small incremental changes in "normal".

Uh-oh, you're on to us. Next step is MANDATORY HOMOSEXUALITY.

The final destination is sexuality!

[Parody Accountant]

Hah. This is a lightning deal on Amazon. Look at the ASIN (catalog number) at the end of the URL.

hahahahahah dp

[KiwiInOz]

You see the same psychological processes applied in current politics and nigh all complex interpersonal diplomacy, that were applied by the Nazi Ideologues in Germany.

You don't just come out on day one and declare that a group of people are our enemy and need to be exterminated in gas chambers. You walk your populace through to that acceptance through "creeping normalization". It is engineered.

Gay marriage for example would have been unthinkable in Ireland 20 years ago! It wasn't that people got smarter, more consistent in their logic, or more fervent in their demand for equality. The movement for equal marriage rights for homosexuals normalized the idea through creep.

1 You could convince people to decriminalize homosexuality, but not accept it, so decriminalize it.
2 You could get people to accept private homosexuality, but not public
3 you get people to accept public homosexuality, but not state recognized
4 You get people to accept extension of limited partnership status state recognized
5 You get full blown equality of marriage.

Going from one to five without the intervening normalization was impossible. Through creeping normalization a regime can really achieve any goal it wishes, people rarely object to small incremental changes in "normal".

It's happening here in Australia around refugees, ISIS, and climate change/renewable energy at the moment. Our reactionary government is driving a narrative of fear and loathing to suit their social engineering agenda.

[KiwiInOz]

You see the same psychological processes applied in current politics and nigh all complex interpersonal diplomacy, that were applied by the Nazi Ideologues in Germany.

You don't just come out on day one and declare that a group of people are our enemy and need to be exterminated in gas chambers. You walk your populace through to that acceptance through "creeping normalization". It is engineered.

Gay marriage for example would have been unthinkable in Ireland 20 years ago! It wasn't that people got smarter, more consistent in their logic, or more fervent in their demand for equality. The movement for equal marriage rights for homosexuals normalized the idea through creep.

1 You could convince people to decriminalize homosexuality, but not accept it, so decriminalize it.
2 You could get people to accept private homosexuality, but not public
3 you get people to accept public homosexuality, but not state recognized
4 You get people to accept extension of limited partnership status state recognized
5 You get full blown equality of marriage.

Going from one to five without the intervening normalization was impossible. Through creeping normalization a regime can really achieve any goal it wishes, people rarely object to small incremental changes in "normal".

Uh-oh, you're on to us. Next step is MANDATORY HOMOSEXUALITY.

Now that will be fabulous. Sparkles and leather chaps all round.

[jet_lagg]

I was hoping that Civil War would bring in Morales, just because of Parker's over saturation and the stink of failure on him.

That is because they keep on rebooting him as opposed to telling more of the damn continuing story. I am happy to see the Batman vs. Superman isn't another damn reboot.

I only read the first couple issues of Morales as Spiderman, but I liked it a lot. He seemed like a real worthy successor to Parker. Raised in a struggling family in New York, he wins the lotto to attend a magnet school and his first thought, rather than celebration, is the poor sap next to him who didn't make it in. Selflessness is such a huge part of who Spiderman is. Morales has the chops, and he also seemed to understand what big shoes he would have to fill taking up the mantle.

What would make for a badass twist would be if they kill Parker off, like in the comics, and introduce Morales as the new Spiderman in a later film. That would also get around the legal situation where Spiderman has to be [insert list here] cus this isn't *Spiderman* Spiderman. This is Spiderman 2.0, completely new character (which, for the non-geeks is exactly what Stan Lee was advocating, and it happened long before his controversial remarks).

[jet_lagg]

Also, for some anecdata, I roll with some pretty geeky crowds in NYC. My best friend worked at Midtown Comics for years, and really had his ear to the ground. I've never once heard, or heard of, anyone reacting to Morales with anything less than unreserved enthusiasm. He's a great new character (keyword NEW, not some appropriation of an already existing identity), and people loved him.

[Lsuoma]

Also, for some anecdata, I roll with some pretty geeky crowds in NYC. My best friend worked at Midtown Comics for years, and really had his ear to the ground. I've never once heard, or heard of, anyone reacting to Morales with anything less than unreserved enthusiasm. He's a great new character (keyword NEW, not some appropriation of an already existing identity), and people loved him.

[Meta]

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Also, for some anecdata, I roll with some pretty geeky crowds in NYC. My best friend worked at Midtown Comics for years, and really had his ear to the ground. I've never once heard, or heard of, anyone reacting to Morales with anything less than unreserved enthusiasm. He's a great new character (keyword NEW, not some appropriation of an already existing identity), and people loved him.

[Meta]

[cunt]

[comhcinc]

What would make for a badass twist would be if they kill Parker off, like in the comics, and introduce Morales as the new Spiderman in a later film. That would also get around the legal situation where Spiderman has to be [insert list here] cus this isn't *Spiderman* Spiderman.

That isn't an issue. That was in the contract for when Sony licensed Spider-man (not spiderman you pleb). Remember that horrible Halle Berry Catwoman movie? You know the one where they changed pretty much everything about the character? Or hearing about some of the ideas Tim Burton had for his Superman movie?
http://img.europapress.net/fotoweb/foto ... 29_800.jpg

The contract was written to stop things like that from happening.

That is what this people who are upset about those leaked documents don't seem to get. It wasn't that Marvel was afraid they would make Spider-Man black, or gay. It was because they were afraid they would give the character to somebody who that had a crazy idea and ruin the character.

Sony has licensed the rights back to Marvel and Marvel can do whatever they want to with Spider-man.

I was hoping for a Morales Spider-man in Civil War and somewhere down the road we learn what happens to Parker in a tied in standalone movie. It would be neat for bits and pieces to be talked about in Captain America and the next Avengers film. It would help create a history for the cinematic universe. Fill in some of that time between WWII and Iron Man.

What if Spider-man was around before Iron Man? What if you tie Morales becoming Spider-Man to the alien invasion from the first Avengers film?

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

You see the same psychological processes applied in current politics and nigh all complex interpersonal diplomacy, that were applied by the Nazi Ideologues in Germany.

You don't just come out on day one and declare that a group of people are our enemy and need to be exterminated in gas chambers. You walk your populace through to that acceptance through "creeping normalization". It is engineered.

Gay marriage for example would have been unthinkable in Ireland 20 years ago! It wasn't that people got smarter, more consistent in their logic, or more fervent in their demand for equality. The movement for equal marriage rights for homosexuals normalized the idea through creep.

1 You could convince people to decriminalize homosexuality, but not accept it, so decriminalize it.
2 You could get people to accept private homosexuality, but not public
3 you get people to accept public homosexuality, but not state recognized
4 You get people to accept extension of limited partnership status state recognized
5 You get full blown equality of marriage.

Going from one to five without the intervening normalization was impossible. Through creeping normalization a regime can really achieve any goal it wishes, people rarely object to small incremental changes in "normal".

You have moved one step beyond the mighty mind of Nerd of Redhead, one of whose boilerplate responses - to people suggesting that perhaps Pharyngula's cuntish commenters are a little bit counter-productive - is something like "History shows that reasoned debate does not work. The only thing that works is shouting loudly and demanding people change their opinions to suit yours. Malcolm X, MLK, etc, etc, blah, etc".

[youtube]N-uyWAe0NhQ[/youtube]

[AndrewV69]

A few of years ago I came to the conclusion that the constant promotion of the Holocaust was effectively a distraction. Which lead me to the question of what exactly are we being distracted from? Why the fuss over the Holocaust and not the Holodomor? Was it because of the Bolsheviks and who many of their leaders were?

Well, I've heard it said by some (nitwits) that the reason we hear more of the Holocaust as opposed to Holodomor is due to the fact that many Bolshevik leaders were Jews. And that's it's all a big Jewish conspiracy, or something.

Given that, as you rightly say, it can lead you into tinfoil hat territory - and such blame-the-Jews conspiracy theorising is pretty much prime tinfoil hat territory - then what non-tinfoil-hat-territory thing is it that you're trying to point out as regards these Bolshevik leaders, Andy?

Beware of people with "big" ideas (among other things) who really really know what is good for us and by gosh and by golly are going to do it anyway despite your petty concerns, because the "little" people with their "little" minds just simply are not capable of understanding that some short term pain is necessary to achieve the greater good and their sacrifice is really worth it in the end.

Aside from that you did read the TL;DNR?

[Tigzy]

A few of years ago I came to the conclusion that the constant promotion of the Holocaust was effectively a distraction. Which lead me to the question of what exactly are we being distracted from? Why the fuss over the Holocaust and not the Holodomor? Was it because of the Bolsheviks and who many of their leaders were?

Well, I've heard it said by some (nitwits) that the reason we hear more of the Holocaust as opposed to Holodomor is due to the fact that many Bolshevik leaders were Jews. And that's it's all a big Jewish conspiracy, or something.

Given that, as you rightly say, it can lead you into tinfoil hat territory - and such blame-the-Jews conspiracy theorising is pretty much prime tinfoil hat territory - then what non-tinfoil-hat-territory thing is it that you're trying to point out as regards these Bolshevik leaders, Andy?

Beware of people with "big" ideas (among other things) who really really know what is good for us and by gosh and by golly are going to do it anyway despite your petty concerns, because the "little" people with their "little" minds just simply are not capable of understanding that some short term pain is necessary to achieve the greater good and their sacrifice is really worth it in the end.

Oh. Okay.

Aside from that you did read the TL;DNR?

No, I read the long bit.

YMMV

[Sulman]

You see the same psychological processes applied in current politics and nigh all complex interpersonal diplomacy, that were applied by the Nazi Ideologues in Germany.

You don't just come out on day one and declare that a group of people are our enemy and need to be exterminated in gas chambers. You walk your populace through to that acceptance through "creeping normalization". It is engineered.

Gay marriage for example would have been unthinkable in Ireland 20 years ago! It wasn't that people got smarter, more consistent in their logic, or more fervent in their demand for equality. The movement for equal marriage rights for homosexuals normalized the idea through creep.

1 You could convince people to decriminalize homosexuality, but not accept it, so decriminalize it.
2 You could get people to accept private homosexuality, but not public
3 you get people to accept public homosexuality, but not state recognized
4 You get people to accept extension of limited partnership status state recognized
5 You get full blown equality of marriage.

Going from one to five without the intervening normalization was impossible. Through creeping normalization a regime can really achieve any goal it wishes, people rarely object to small incremental changes in "normal".

Uh-oh, you're on to us. Next step is MANDATORY HOMOSEXUALITY.

Well at least everyone will be well dressed

[Gefan]

http://nortedigital.mx/wp-content/uploa ... s_nota.jpg

Is it possible that we're all being punked?

The Four Horseman of The Trollpocalypse:

Parsehole
Steersman
Carrier
Trump

[jet_lagg]

That isn't an issue. That was in the contract for when Sony licensed Spider-man (not spiderman you pleb)

I'll suppose you'll next be saying it's "the" batman you bourgeois fuck ;)

[comhcinc]

That isn't an issue. That was in the contract for when Sony licensed Spider-man (not spiderman you pleb)

I'll suppose you'll next be saying it's "the" batman you bourgeois fuck ;)

http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0 ... batman.jpg

[AndrewV69]

You see the same psychological processes applied in current politics and nigh all complex interpersonal diplomacy, that were applied by the Nazi Ideologues in Germany.

You don't just come out on day one and declare that a group of people are our enemy and need to be exterminated in gas chambers. You walk your populace through to that acceptance through "creeping normalization". It is engineered.

Gay marriage for example would have been unthinkable in Ireland 20 years ago! It wasn't that people got smarter, more consistent in their logic, or more fervent in their demand for equality. The movement for equal marriage rights for homosexuals normalized the idea through creep.

1 You could convince people to decriminalize homosexuality, but not accept it, so decriminalize it.
2 You could get people to accept private homosexuality, but not public
3 you get people to accept public homosexuality, but not state recognized
4 You get people to accept extension of limited partnership status state recognized
5 You get full blown equality of marriage.

Going from one to five without the intervening normalization was impossible. Through creeping normalization a regime can really achieve any goal it wishes, people rarely object to small incremental changes in "normal".

It's happening here in Australia around refugees, ISIS, and climate change/renewable energy at the moment. Our reactionary government is driving a narrative of fear and loathing to suit their social engineering agenda.

Speaking of which, there are indications that the Sunni/Shia business is heating up down under. I see that someone shot Rasoul Al Mousawi last year for example.

"These people have been conducting a campaign of intimidation for the past few weeks," said prominent Shia Jamal Daoud. "I talk to many of the people in the community, and they're very concerned and they're very scared."

Yaya. Keep telling people that this is a recent thing. I do not buy it. I recall reading of incidents over at ShiaChat about Sunni/Shia violence from years ago. Before ISIL/IS was even a thing even.

Anywho, this is a small price to pay. The grand multicultural project will proceed despite all these pettifogging incidents.

[AndrewV69]

http://nortedigital.mx/wp-content/uploa ... s_nota.jpg

Is it possible that we're all being punked?

The Four Horseman of The Trollpocalypse:

Parsehole
Steersman
Carrier
Trump

You nailed it.

[AndrewV69]

Meanwhile, I am in the middle of Season Two of the Bridge.


OMFG!

Saga Norén ... my sides are in orbit. I do not care about plot, pacing, whatever. All I want to see is what she says next.

[jet_lagg]

That isn't an issue. That was in the contract for when Sony licensed Spider-man (not spiderman you pleb)

I'll suppose you'll next be saying it's "the" batman you bourgeois fuck ;)

http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0 ... batman.jpg

Frank Miller really did turn out to be a loony old man, didn't he? This in no way detracts from his earlier work. I'm reminded of that line from Free Enterprise. "Shatner's dementia is no reason to give up on the gospel of the original series"

[jugheadnaut]

... Of course, Nungessar can still sue her for libel. But winning that is a fairly tough burden. He'd basically have to prove by preponderance of the evidence that she knows it wasn't rape or that her belief that she was raped is not reasonable. This is much more difficult than proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the rape didn't occur.

Given the parties (both "private persons"; as opposed to "public persons" or "media outlets") and the issue at hand (not a "matter of public concern"), he would merely need to show that she defamed him (i.e., by proving that she claimed he raped her). She could raise "truth" as a *defense*, but that burden would be on her to prove it was true (not him to prove it was false). Her "belief" is not really relevant, reasonable or not.

Yes, you are right that technically the burden would be on her. As claimant, he would need to prove defamation (pretty much a given) and she would raise truth as a defense. However, since the standard in a civil action is just preponderance of the evidence (50.00001%), practically speaking the burdens are almost equally distributed.

However, reasonable belief of truth is generally regarded as just as exculpatory as truth itself.

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

So her belief is relevant. IMO, getting a super-majority of jurors to reject her defense of reasonable belief of truth will be tough.

Another issue at play is, if she is sued, she will go hard into victim mode and crank up the standard SJW grifting operation. I'm certain she'll be able to raise a lot of crowdfunding money for a "defense fund". Probably Stollznow numbers at the bare minimum. And it will keep her visibility level up. Without something like this, her time seems just about finished.

[Aneris]

Adding a new double standard to the arsenal...

Miri thinks you can't overhear, or record someones conversation and put it online on twitter.

:think:

Remember, Adria Richards who did everything “exactly right” when she took a picture from two men she overheard making that “dongle” joke (and smallest disagreements led to massive feuds even with former “friends” — Ellen Beth in this case). And what about the beloved “call out culture”?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... n-twitter/

Characteristically, Miri discusses none of this, giving the impression as if none of that happened and as if her views were without any context.

[Billie from Ockham]

Was the conversation in public, in private, or in a semi-private setting (such as an event with controlled access)?

[comhcinc]

Frank Miller really did turn out to be a loony old man, didn't he? This in no way detracts from his earlier work. I'm reminded of that line from Free Enterprise. "Shatner's dementia is no reason to give up on the gospel of the original series"

Miller was always loony it just wasn't as noticeable because for the longest time when you thought about Frank Miller you also thought about Alan Moore.

https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress. ... legend.jpg

And Alan Fucking Moore refuses to be out crazied.

Honest I am not a be fan of the batman, at least how he is normally written as. He is hardly ever really written as a detective anymore. While that's not Miller's fault once he made him a ninja he has never been able to recover. The Batman beats the shit out of people or hangs them off a roof and that's how he gets his information nowadays.

Btw Sherlock Holmes in a cape is great but I have my own take on the Batman. I would like to see him written as a complete psychopath. Not as a high moralist out to protect the innocent but rather a highly disturbed person who wants to set the world punished. In mind he isn't the polar oppisite of the Joker. He is just as like him, just his methods are different. That is why the Joker can never break the Batman. He was broke a long time ago.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Perhaps it's a meme image, but Meyers has this:

http://i.imgur.com/jsJCwde.png

Here it is enlargified:
http://i.imgur.com/u4guF6X.png

Of note, Meyers has begun using such images as little highlighting tags for his posts. He does not link to their creator, which is surely denying starving artists their food money, right?

They may have forgotten Surly Amy's action against Vacula and others (considering it merely an expedient way of pissing off enemies at the time, rather than a heartfelt battle against copyright infringement) but we fucking haven't.

Hey, Meyers you cunt. Start crediting the original source for your images, else some awkward cunt might start notifying the legal authorities about your use of original content images for personal gain.

[comhcinc]

Was the conversation in public, in private, or in a semi-private setting (such as an event with controlled access)?

Coffee Shop.

[Really?]

Perhaps it's a meme image, but Meyers has this:

http://i.imgur.com/jsJCwde.png

Here it is enlargified:
http://i.imgur.com/u4guF6X.png

Of note, Meyers has begun using such images as little highlighting tags for his posts. He does not link to their creator, which is surely denying starving artists their food money, right?

They may have forgotten Surly Amy's action against Vacula and others (considering it merely an expedient way of pissing off enemies at the time, rather than a heartfelt battle against copyright infringement) but we fucking haven't.

Hey, Meyers you cunt. Start crediting the original source for your images, else some awkward cunt might start notifying the legal authorities about your use of original content images for personal gain.

People like Myers have no compunction over HensleyBensonAvicennaing the work of others in a manner that Carrier's the Fair Use Doctrine.

[James Caruthers]

Frank Miller really did turn out to be a loony old man, didn't he? This in no way detracts from his earlier work. I'm reminded of that line from Free Enterprise. "Shatner's dementia is no reason to give up on the gospel of the original series"

Miller was always loony it just wasn't as noticeable because for the longest time when you thought about Frank Miller you also thought about Alan Moore.

https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress. ... legend.jpg

And Alan Fucking Moore refuses to be out crazied.

Honest I am not a be fan of the batman, at least how he is normally written as. He is hardly ever really written as a detective anymore. While that's not Miller's fault once he made him a ninja he has never been able to recover. The Batman beats the shit out of people or hangs them off a roof and that's how he gets his information nowadays.

Btw Sherlock Holmes in a cape is great but I have my own take on the Batman. I would like to see him written as a complete psychopath. Not as a high moralist out to protect the innocent but rather a highly disturbed person who wants to set the world punished. In mind he isn't the polar oppisite of the Joker. He is just as like him, just his methods are different. That is why the Joker can never break the Batman. He was broke a long time ago.

We don't need two Frank Castles.

[comhcinc]

Front page of Reddit on r/videos

[youtube]xfKP_cEBt1U[/youtube]

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Perhaps it's a meme image, but Meyers has this:

http://i.imgur.com/jsJCwde.png

Here it is enlargified:
http://i.imgur.com/u4guF6X.png

One of the two main questions I meant to ask with this comment was: I assume that - surely - Meyers was being inronical in using this cartoon of a swooning woman to make...whatever the fuck his point was.

But how fucking dare the midget cunt do this, and then chastise others for making their own jokes about women, non-whites, homos, jews, etc? Why should we accept his veiled bigotry as fine, when the rest of us are walking in a fucking minefield of oppression, outrage, and -isms?

[Really?]

Shit. No apostrophe in "Carriers."

[some guy]

... However, reasonable belief of truth is generally regarded as just as exculpatory as truth itself.

Not applicable where both parties are "private persons" where the issue is not a "matter of public concern", and where the defamatory statement was not made under circumstances where some sort of exception might apply. (An example of such an exception would be something like filing a police report (later disclosed to the press) that claim that X raped them, where their belief that X raped them was wrong but deemed to be a reasonable mistake. It would not be an exception if, long after the events, she stood on the street corner and made that claim to all that passed by.)

Another issue at play is, if she is sued, she will go hard into victim mode and crank up the standard SJW grifting operation. I'm certain she'll be able to raise a lot of crowdfunding money for a "defense fund". Probably Stollznow numbers at the bare minimum. And it will keep her visibility level up. Without something like this, her time seems just about finished.

Maybe. Depends on the strength of his case and the amount of damages he is likely to recover. I don't think "UVa Jackie" would fair very well going that route, but she might fair better. (I honestly don't know if she has a base of support or whether she's viewed as a obsessed whacko in SJW world.) And if he wins maybe some of that SJW money will go to him.

But that's for him to decide, and proceeding with a lawsuit is always a gamble about whether what you recover will offset the financial and emotional cost of prosecuting the suit. In any case, its not relevant to the legal standards that would apply in the proceedings. He won't need to prove he was innocent in order to prevail.

[comhcinc]

We don't need two Frank Castles.

That's the thing. You don't have to have the Batman start killing people left and right. He is a psychopath but that doesn't mean he will just kill people. In fact I think you can play it as he won't kill people in his warped sense for revenge. He wants people to be in pain, not dead. Hell, he wants people to get better just so he can hurt them some more.

The Batman I am talking about is truly fucking scary.

[AndrewV69]

Front page of Reddit on r/videos

[youtube]xfKP_cEBt1U[/youtube]

Hahahaha!

I just love it.

Will it now become official law that disagreeing with a feminist/woman if you are a man is harassment and subject to criminal law?

Only in Canukistan you say? Pity!

[Service Dog]

Btw Sherlock Holmes in a cape is great but I have my own take on the Batman. I would like to see him written as a complete psychopath. Not as a high moralist out to protect the innocent but rather a highly disturbed person who wants to set the world punished. In mind he isn't the polar oppisite of the Joker. He is just as like him, just his methods are different. That is why the Joker can never break the Batman. He was broke a long time ago.

You need to track-down Grant Morrison's 2008 run on Batman #676-681, compiled as "Batman R.I.P.".

In that telling, the notion of Batman was invented by six year old Bruce Wayne, in the immediate trauma of his parents death. The childish retardation of a scary tough guy in a black cape punishing criminals is due to young Bruce's actual childish retardation. The un-even tone throughout Batman's publication history is explained by Bruce growing-up thru the eras & experiencing psychological growth & setbacks...

so the fun, freewheeling 60's Batman is explained by the arrival Robin, a surrogate brother for the emotionally stunted to Bruce to frolic-against-crime with & have adventures & lighten-up. Bat-Mite is a hallucination. And really-weird alternate Batmen-- like the wild west version & the caveman version are moments when Bruce went insane. In this series... Bruce wanders the streets as a delusional homeless man, dressed like a caveman-batman, with a broken transistor radio on his homeless utility belt.

It's better than I made it sound.

[comhcinc]

Btw Sherlock Holmes in a cape is great but I have my own take on the Batman. I would like to see him written as a complete psychopath. Not as a high moralist out to protect the innocent but rather a highly disturbed person who wants to set the world punished. In mind he isn't the polar opposite of the Joker. He is just as like him, just his methods are different. That is why the Joker can never break the Batman. He was broke a long time ago.

You need to track-down Grant Morrison's 2008 run on Batman #676-681, compiled as "Batman R.I.P.".

I've read it. It's a good story line even if the aftermath wasn't that great.

[James Caruthers]

We don't need two Frank Castles.

That's the thing. You don't have to have the Batman start killing people left and right. He is a psychopath but that doesn't mean he will just kill people. In fact I think you can play it as he won't kill people in his warped sense for revenge. He wants people to be in pain, not dead. Hell, he wants people to get better just so he can hurt them some more.

The Batman I am talking about is truly fucking scary.

I think they already do this to some extent. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, this is often how Batman comes across. He is a legit psycho, as much as any of the villains, and the more well-written Batman shows and comics explore this element. Batman Beyond talks about how Bruce basically destroyed all his old relationships because he's toxic. Even as an old man, he's an utter asshole consumed with a need for what he calls "justice." He's only a hero because the villains are worse.

[James Caruthers]

Of course, one of the reasons the viewer tends to excuse Batman's behavior is because of beneficial consequences and expediency. Batman is a less extreme, but ironically more perverse IMO version of Frank Castle. Castle just eliminates a threat outright, with no interest in prolonging suffering. But Batman... He beats up these various mentally ill people, drags them back to their asylum which they inevitably break out of so he can repeat the cycle over and over. But these are just crazy homicidal fucks, right? So Bats should either lock them up securely, get them some good therapists (which he can afford) or else kill the crazies.

I think sometimes it shows more mercy (and sanity) to kill than to do what Bats does. But like you said comh, not killing is part of his black-and-white boy scouts moral code. It's almost a psychosis. His aversion to guns, for example, seems rooted in trauma.

"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."

[jugheadnaut]

What would make for a badass twist would be if they kill Parker off, like in the comics, and introduce Morales as the new Spiderman in a later film. That would also get around the legal situation where Spiderman has to be [insert list here] cus this isn't *Spiderman* Spiderman. This is Spiderman 2.0, completely new character (which, for the non-geeks is exactly what Stan Lee was advocating, and it happened long before his controversial remarks).

Movie/TV adaptations almost always try to reduce the number of characters. This is not only because there is less space for exposition, but also because the typical movie/TV viewer is less sophisticated than consumers of the source material and is only willing to focus a few hours on it as opposed to tens, hundreds or even thousands of hours. So I would understand if hypothetically a studio decides a completely different Spider-Man character will be too confusing and just goes with a racial recast of the existing character, which people are used to by now. Personally, I wouldn't have a significant issue with it but I haven't been a comic book enthusiast since the age of 12. I can understand how it would drive actual comic book enthusiasts batty.

Sony can't do an end-around the contract by having a 'new' Spider-Man. The contract specifically states that it applies whether Spider-Man is Peter Parker or another character. I wasn't surprised to find this out, as highly paid intellectual property lawyers aren't idiots.

[free thoughtpolice]

Even as an old man, he's an utter asshole consumed with a need for what he calls "justice." He's only a hero because the villains are worse.

Great. So he is going to be speeding around the mall in his Bat Scooter, running over people's toes, making sure nobody has more than 12 items at the first checkout, and remind people to bring their own bags instead of asking for disposables. :(

[jugheadnaut]

You need to track-down Grant Morrison's 2008 run on Batman #676-681, compiled as "Batman R.I.P.".

In that telling, the notion of Batman was invented by six year old Bruce Wayne, in the immediate trauma of his parents death. The childish retardation of a scary tough guy in a black cape punishing criminals is due to young Bruce's actual childish retardation. The un-even tone throughout Batman's publication history is explained by Bruce growing-up thru the eras & experiencing psychological growth & setbacks...

so the fun, freewheeling 60's Batman is explained by the arrival Robin, a surrogate brother for the emotionally stunted to Bruce to frolic-against-crime with & have adventures & lighten-up. Bat-Mite is a hallucination. And really-weird alternate Batmen-- like the wild west version & the caveman version are moments when Bruce went insane. In this series... Bruce wanders the streets as a delusional homeless man, dressed like a caveman-batman, with a broken transistor radio on his homeless utility belt.

It's better than I made it sound.

That actually sounds fantastic. I'll have to check it out.

[comhcinc]

We don't need two Frank Castles.

That's the thing. You don't have to have the Batman start killing people left and right. He is a psychopath but that doesn't mean he will just kill people. In fact I think you can play it as he won't kill people in his warped sense for revenge. He wants people to be in pain, not dead. Hell, he wants people to get better just so he can hurt them some more.

The Batman I am talking about is truly fucking scary.

I think they already do this to some extent. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, this is often how Batman comes across. He is a legit psycho, as much as any of the villains, and the more well-written Batman shows and comics explore this element. Batman Beyond talks about how Bruce basically destroyed all his old relationships because he's toxic. Even as an old man, he's an utter asshole consumed with a need for what he calls "justice." He's only a hero because the villains are worse.

Of course, one of the reasons the viewer tends to excuse Batman's behavior is because of beneficial consequences and expediency. Batman is a less extreme, but ironically more perverse IMO version of Frank Castle. Castle just eliminates a threat outright, with no interest in prolonging suffering. But Batman... He beats up these various mentally ill people, drags them back to their asylum which they inevitably break out of so he can repeat the cycle over and over. But these are just crazy homicidal fucks, right? So Bats should either lock them up securely, get them some good therapists (which he can afford) or else kill the crazies.

I think sometimes it shows more mercy (and sanity) to kill than to do what Bats does. But like you said comh, not killing is part of his black-and-white boy scouts moral code. It's almost a psychosis. His aversion to guns, for example, seems rooted in trauma.

"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."

Now you are starting to think like me. They get close but they always have his saving some kid or something of that nature. My Batman would not save people. People would be saved because of his actions. It would be a side effect. He wouldn't respect victims. He would be uncaring.

Unlike Castle who like you said, is taking care of problems. He cares about people, he just cares about some people more than other people.

Btw, this has me thinking. If you want to read a great story about vengeance check out 1994's Ghost Rider Annual #2. It's has Warren Ellis's first American comic story in it. The story is called Wish for Pain and stars the much cooler Marvel comic's version of Scarecrow and of course Ghost Rider. If you can find the full comic you should but I found a good write up that has scans of some of the best pages.
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.co ... ack-pages/

[MacGruberKnows]

I have just the guy for the Batman as psychopath character:

http://tribwgntv.files.wordpress.com/20 ... holmes.jpg

Give him some orange hair and he'll be good to go.

[jugheadnaut]

... However, reasonable belief of truth is generally regarded as just as exculpatory as truth itself.

Not applicable where both parties are "private persons" where the issue is not a "matter of public concern", and where the defamatory statement was not made under circumstances where some sort of exception might apply. (An example of such an exception would be something like filing a police report (later disclosed to the press) that claim that X raped them, where their belief that X raped them was wrong but deemed to be a reasonable mistake. It would not be an exception if, long after the events, she stood on the street corner and made that claim to all that passed by.)

IANAL, and may be Dunning-Kruger'ing it here, but my understanding is that the main difference between defamation cases involving public and private persons is that when a public person sues for defamation, they must prove actual malice. So if Nungesser was a public person, he would need to prove (by preponderance of evidence) that Sulkowicz knows her statement was false. As a non-public person, he has the lower burden of disproving the defense that her belief that she was raped was reasonable. That Wikipedia quote (yeah, I know) was making a general claim about defamation law not only in the US and presumably covering both public and private persons. But I'm certainly open to be educated here. Are you yourself a lawyer or do you have any links that go into detail on this?

Another issue at play is, if she is sued, she will go hard into victim mode and crank up the standard SJW grifting operation. I'm certain she'll be able to raise a lot of crowdfunding money for a "defense fund". Probably Stollznow numbers at the bare minimum. And it will keep her visibility level up. Without something like this, her time seems just about finished.

Maybe. Depends on the strength of his case and the amount of damages he is likely to recover. I don't think "UVa Jackie" would fair very well going that route, but she might fair better. (I honestly don't know if she has a base of support or whether she's viewed as a obsessed whacko in SJW world.) And if he wins maybe some of that SJW money will go to him.

But that's for him to decide, and proceeding with a lawsuit is always a gamble about whether what you recover will offset the financial and emotional cost of prosecuting the suit. In any case, its not relevant to the legal standards that would apply in the proceedings. He won't need to prove he was innocent in order to prevail.

Yes, it's a big role of the dice and I certainly understand, and from my limited knowledge agree with, why his lawyers have advised against it. It's possible that SJW crowdsourced money may wind up going to him. But probably not, as even if she knew was losing she'd find a way to sink it into her defense. She'd rather the money go to her lawyers than to him. It's much more likely that she would use the money to go on the offense and scare him off.

[jugheadnaut]

The Pit seems to be a much more interesting place the last couple of days. It's like a great pea soup fog has lifted.

[KiwiInOz]

Ronda Rousey, ESPY Best Fighter. Sticks it to Floyd.

[Couch]

The Pit seems to be a much more interesting place the last couple of days. It's like a great pea soup fog has lifted.

It's a (likely subconsciously) effect of being Indexed. :shhh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[AndrewV69]

I am just going to drop this off. I dunno what to make of this except that it is in Japan and they sometimes have an "interesting" take on ... well anything you care to think of.

[youtube]M8-vje-bq9c[/youtube]

No hate on the messenger OK?

[jugheadnaut]

The tour can do without Williams AFAIAC, with the bitching about how the rankings don't give enough weight to the grand slams to allow her to skip the regular tour. Fans pay good money to watch Williams examining her nails while half-assing her way out of a smaller tournament so she can go shopping with the appearance cash the organisers are dumb enough to pay her.

On balance, I like Williams' personality but I agree she has some pretty bad flaws. She's definitely worked on them so, at the very least, they don't show up publicly. She's more gracious when she loses a match and isn't so obvious about wanting to be someplace else at a smaller tournament. If it wasn't for the fact that the WTA seems to have tanked in terms of talent, I would also be looking forward to a Williams-less tour. I do think that starting in about 5 years there will be a huge influx of talent from China, even greater than there was with Russia and Eastern Europe in the '90s and early '00s.

The talent surfeit now is frustrating. I sometimes watch part of an early round match and the caliber of play seems below that of a couple of decent male club players (probably not true, though). What happened to Genie Bouchard is interesting. There are big flaws in her game, but she was able to lift it enough and ride a wave of confidence into becoming a top player last year. This could only happen in the current environment. I had hoped she'd be a perennial top 10 for Canada, but now I'm pretty sure the bubble has permanently burst and she's unlikely to be in the top 20 again for any stretch. What happened to her personality was also interesting. Last year she reminded me of Naomi Watt's character at the beginning of Mulholland Dr., who is ironically also Canadian. She was full of ingenue-ish innocence and confidence. She seemed unaware of her beauty, like a socially inexperienced pretty girl in her first year of college who thinks that the male attention she is getting is primarily about shared interests. Now, she seems overtly aware of her looks and exploits her sexuality. She's gone from this:

http://www.beersonthecrop.com/wp-conten ... 35_668.jpg

to this:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/ ... 454330.jpg

[AndrewV69]

Ok, I think I got it.

Japan has got ahold of Metal and they are going to make it theirs.

[youtube]WIKqgE4BwAY[/youtube]

[Billie from Ockham]

The Pit seems to be a much more interesting place the last couple of days. It's like a great pea soup fog has lifted.

It's a (likely subconsciously) effect of being Indexed. :shhh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Reminds me of the geek insult: "you're such a nobody, if you looked inside Schroedinger's Box, the cat would still be both dead and alive."

[jugheadnaut]

The Pit seems to be a much more interesting place the last couple of days. It's like a great pea soup fog has lifted.

It's a (likely subconsciously) effect of being Indexed. :shhh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Maybe, but I'm suspecting something else... :whistle:

[Couch]

The Pit seems to be a much more interesting place the last couple of days. It's like a great pea soup fog has lifted.

It's a (likely subconsciously) effect of being Indexed. :shhh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Reminds me of the geek insult: "you're such a nobody, if you looked inside Schroedinger's Box, the cat would still be both dead and alive."

I'm so using that.

[Couch]

The Pit seems to be a much more interesting place the last couple of days. It's like a great pea soup fog has lifted.

It's a (likely subconsciously) effect of being Indexed. :shhh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Maybe, but I'm suspecting something else... :whistle:

So, If it's not the presence of something...then it must be the absence of something...or someone...?

[jugheadnaut]

The Pit seems to be a much more interesting place the last couple of days. It's like a great pea soup fog has lifted.

It's a (likely subconsciously) effect of being Indexed. :shhh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Reminds me of the geek insult: "you're such a nobody, if you looked inside Schroedinger's Box, the cat would still be both dead and alive."

How about "you're such a nobody, if you looked inside Schroedinger's Box, the dead/alive cat would be observing you."

I just came up with that. I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

[MacGruberKnows]

Ok, I think I got it.

Japan has got ahold of Metal and they are going to make it theirs.

[youtube]WIKqgE4BwAY[/youtube]

Uhh, WTF? Oh, Kawaii!

[jugheadnaut]

Ok, I think I got it.

Japan has got ahold of Metal and they are going to make it theirs.

Yup, it's those cultural appropriators BABYMETAL. Some of their stuff is almost good.

[youtube]0GErGfHjHQ0[/youtube]

[MacGruberKnows]

Ok, I think I got it.

Japan has got ahold of Metal and they are going to make it theirs.

Yup, it's those cultural appropriators BABYMETAL. Some of their stuff is almost good.

[youtube]0GErGfHjHQ0[/youtube]

Which would make it better than most Metal stuff.

It's kitstch and repetitive but hypnotic. Watch the crowd, they do this weird version of a mosh pit or something where they go around in a circle. It's supposed to be mayhem I guess, but it is careful and controlled mayhem. So Japanese. The girls were supposed to be replaced as soon as they graduated from HS, but they kept the oldest one after she graduated. That's how they do it in Japan, you reach a certain age, you are replaced. Some girls last a few months on top of the charts and are gone, replaced by a newer version of who they were. Some girls who go through this kind of disposal machine have committed suicide. Hopefully these very talented girls can stick together in an organic act that actually grows and matures and goes off in new directions. But I doubt it. Have to say, love what I've seen so far. Best of luck young ladies. I hope you can beat the Japanese hype machine.

[Kirbmarc]

You see the same psychological processes applied in current politics and nigh all complex interpersonal diplomacy, that were applied by the Nazi Ideologues in Germany.

You don't just come out on day one and declare that a group of people are our enemy and need to be exterminated in gas chambers. You walk your populace through to that acceptance through "creeping normalization". It is engineered.

Gay marriage for example would have been unthinkable in Ireland 20 years ago! It wasn't that people got smarter, more consistent in their logic, or more fervent in their demand for equality. The movement for equal marriage rights for homosexuals normalized the idea through creep.

1 You could convince people to decriminalize homosexuality, but not accept it, so decriminalize it.
2 You could get people to accept private homosexuality, but not public
3 you get people to accept public homosexuality, but not state recognized
4 You get people to accept extension of limited partnership status state recognized
5 You get full blown equality of marriage.

Going from one to five without the intervening normalization was impossible. Through creeping normalization a regime can really achieve any goal it wishes, people rarely object to small incremental changes in "normal".

Be careful not to Steersman your point, though (i.e. use a flawed analogy that highlights some common elements but discard some very noteworthy differences).

Societies usually advance by small changes. Almost all social changes have gone through a process of "creeping normalization". Many times this isn't even engineered, or at least not entirely engineered. The adoption of agriculture over the hunter-gatherer lifestyle went through a series of "creeping normalization" steps (first people started to pick some plants to harvest, then they defended them from animals, then they tended to them some of the time, then they started to actually sow, etc.) and there was no regime who dictated these steps (actually political regimes were a result of agricultural societies and not vice versa).

Abrupt, quick changes almost never happen. People don't change their mind overnight. If anything things change gradually but really fast in this society, because mass media can help to spread ideas at a very fast pace.

There's nothing wrong with gradual changes. They're better than revolutions at least: they tend to be less bloody and far more effective. Society which reject change altogether tend to experience revolutions and social tensions far more than those which adapt and gradually introduce changes.

The problem is what is changed and the effects of this change. I happen to think, and I think that many here agree, that what should be preserved is a core of liberal, democratic values inspired by the Enlightenment (freedom of speech, freedom of thought, due process, equal civil rights for all, the free discussion of all ideas no matter how "offensive", freedom of mockery and satire, etc.).

I welcome changes which do not threaten these values (like marriage equality, which is actually more coherent with the principles of the Enlightenment than the relentless defense of the status quo where some people can't marry) and I'm not so keen on changes that promote views incompatible with those values ("hate speech" laws, "safe spaces", trigger warnings, processes colleges which violate the rights of the accused, campaigns to get people fired for their opinions or even for jokes, etc.).

TL;DR: The problem isn't gradual normalization per se, it's what is being normalized.