Friday Ephemera
Alas, her telekinetic powers failed her when she needed them the most. || For all your kerning nightmares. || Our political titans. || More joys of public transport. || Winter in Japan. || Landing in trees, in 360 degrees. || The thrill of yarn. || Are we there yet, dad? || He does this better than you do. || I question this design choice. || Oversharing of note. || You shall go to the ball. || Shopping centre scenes. || He sees you. || Headline of note. || “You’ve walked out of the movie three times?” || Woke AF. || Feminist standards. || “Rhetorical violence.” || Always respect the media and their lofty moral leadership. || In fairness, it is easy to miss. || And finally, what appears to be the aftermath of a traumatic collision.
Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one’s view’s and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one’s valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say.
Corbyn has an allotment? The filthy kulak will be the first against the wall after the revolution!
As for the tree landing video, Airborne school teaches you what to do when you parachute into a forest.
Feet and knees together (they should be anyways) and cross your arms over your chest and put your hands in your armpits; that minimizes getting a branch shoved into an artery. On the other hand, an Airborne trooper descent is at the maximum rate that probably won’t damage you on landing. You are considered a valid military target whilst floating down and it is perfectly OK to shoot at you while that’s happening; as a result, you don’t want to be floating in the air longer than necessary.
(Pilots are considered to be more-or-less out of the fight without their aircraft, so the rules for shooting at them while they are floating down are slightly different.)
While I was an Armor puke (and a Signal puke), I did go to Airborne school to earn my wings back in the dark ages (1978).
Who’s Catherine West arguing with? “Stop mansplaining!”
I wonder if this will be the quality of debate the left will have this election?
And finally, what appears to be the aftermath of a traumatic collision.
LOL. It’s like the shroud of Turin.
Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion . . .
I wonder if I might crave your momentary indulgence in order to discharge a by no means disagreeable obligation . . .
“Rhetorical violence.”
Literal stupid.
Morning, all.
LOL. It’s like the shroud of Turin.
Poor lamb. Presumably, he didn’t expect daddy’s thighs to be quite so sticky.
Literal stupid.
Mr Chipman is not a happy chap. Some of his film commentary is actually quite interesting, but his politics, which increasingly intrude, are unhinged. I mean, when you’re raging against Christina Hoff Sommers, as if she were some kind of Demon Queen, Bringer Of The Fascist Apocalypse, it’s probably time to retrace your steps.
“Mansplaining” has only ever meant “know your place and don’t speak out of turn”. Feminists may claim to believe women are oppressed by men, but they act like they believe they’re the aristocrats and we’re the lower orders.
“Mansplaining” has only ever meant “know your place and don’t speak out of turn”.
In this case, it seems to mean, “I’ve just said something embarrassingly stupid on live television, and said it in a self-satisfied way, making it even worse, and you must not be allowed to draw attention to it. Because, being a she-person, I should be allowed to mouth any old bollocks with impunity.”
“Mansplaining”. You literally can’t tell some women anything.
he didn’t expect daddy’s thighs to be quite so sticky.
Er…
I thought the first link was an excellent artistic protrayal of Remainers trying to stop Brexit, and then Sherriff Boris comes along and tasers them.
…they act like they believe they’re the aristocrats and we’re the lower orders.
And this is why the proper response is to politely – politely now because civility is important – ask such women to please stop cuntshunting your side of the conversation.
“Mansplaining” has only ever meant “know your place and don’t speak out of turn”.
Originally it was a witty definition offered for a boorish act by a man, who attempted to explain to Rebecca Solnit that she should read this book, and this is what the book was about…. Solnit had written the book herself!
So the use of the word in those instances is quite appropriate. Unfortunately the term quickly changed from ‘man explaining to a woman something she already has demonstrable expertise in’ to ‘man making an annoying argument’ to ‘man being patronising’ – which, in effect, means ‘man existing’.
In the vid here it’s just so bonkers. Sure, it’s irritating being interrupted by someone else. But politicians do it all the time, it’s their job to get their own message out and deny other politicians space for their message. It’s another lefty politician assuming the victim position.
Witchdom ain’t what it used to be.
Decadence permeates.
cuntshunting
[ Muffled sniggering. ]
I prefer wominterrupting, but cuntshunting also has its charms.
More joys of public transport.
In all fairness to London; also St. Louis, Baltimore, NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, DC, Boston, LA. The real crime in the second video is a Domino’s in Ireland.
Virtue signal of note.
The real crime in the second video is a Domino’s in Ireland.
Domino’s pizza is so bland.
The thing that gets me is, it’s not like women don’t flippen monopolize discussions much more often than men. Jeez. Like the lady giving TMI in the Oversharing link. Shut up, take a breath. And yes, I just mansplained mansplaining. Deal with it.
Also…
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Jeffrey Epstein did not commit suicide. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
I am calling out CULTURAL APPROPRIATION.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjHwfVcYKSI
What do the Chiquites and Mexos Indians of Bolivia have to do with European Baroque music?! I DEMAND REPARATIONS.
I also demand tickets.
“You’ve walked out of the movie three times?”
Still haven’t seen ‘The Exorcist’. Is it actually any good?
Is it actually any good?
I saw it back in the heady days of Blockbuster VHS rentals, about 400 million years ago, so I don’t recall much detail. It’s not the kind of thing I’d generally seek out, but my impression is that it was better than much of the schlock that followed, and the escalating unpleasantness did ostensibly serve a purpose beyond revolting the audience. I.e., the demon is trying to break the faith, and humanity, of the priests.
Still haven’t seen ‘The Exorcist’. Is it actually any good?
I saw it 410 million years ago and similar to David, don’t recall much except that I was kinda disappointed. Now note that I was too young to see it when it first came out, but just old enough to hear the hype and the hysteria. The ambulances standing by (or reports of such) outside the theaters. It was a right of passage for the teenagers a little older than me. There was much controversy about it being rated ‘R’ instead of ‘X’. I’m really not into horror flicks*. Texas Chainsaw Massacre* came out the next year and there was less hype about that. Those were pre-Betamax/pre-VHS days (or at least for Depression era parent households like ours) and thus I didn’t see either of those flicks until I was in college and thus after I had seen the ONE horror movie that did, kinda, scare me, Halloween. But even that I think only scared me because a girl I liked had seen it and when I did see it…well, TMI…But anyway, when I did see TE in college, relative to Halloween it was kind of a let down. I think the first Alien movie (yes, horror but not fully in the genre) was the only film that really scared me. Ah, but that time I actually had brought a real live girl with me to the theater so…never mind.
* However I am a huuuuuge fan of Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
I saw it a mere 66 million years ago, but only the first 15 minutes due to a SMOD event.
but only the first 15 minutes due to a SMOD event.
Ha. We Gators laugh at you dinosaurs and your SMOD. Landlubbing schmucks.
I think the first Alien movie (yes, horror but not fully in the genre)
It’s fully in genre. As the joke goes, “Alien is a horror film in drag as a science fiction film. Aliens is a Vietnam film in drag as a science fiction film.”
Using the definition “a science fiction story is a story that could not be told[1] without the science/technology that drives the plot”, there’s very, very little actual science fiction in film or television. The Expanse doesn’t count. Offhand, I think The Cold Equations is the only work that does, although feel free to argue the point.
[1] The weakness in this definition is that it isn’t hard to cast most SF as fantasy if you allow A Wizard Did It as a substitute for technology.
I thought The Exorcist 3 was a much better film with cracking performances from George C Scott and Brad Dourif. But nobody watched it after John Boorman’s terrible sequel.
Thanks.
*adds to list*
It’s fully in genre. As the joke goes,
I get the point but “real” horror films have the added factor of “based on a true story” or such that sci-fi can’t meet. After TE and TCM and Halloween, there was Last House on the Left and Amityvillle Horror and other similar “true” story stuff.
Is it actually any good?
Viewed by today’s standards, the supernatural effects come off as campy. Watching the head spinning scene (which supposedly affected so many people back in the day) is like looking for the strings on some of the models in Star Wars.
The movie takes a topic which is largely psychological and tries to bring it into the physical world. By comparison, Rosemary’s Baby leaves most of the horror to the viewers imagination other than a few seconds where we think we’re seeing a demon. For that reason, it stands up better than The Exorcist.
It’s still worth seeing because of it’s place in the genre. It helps if you can suspend belief like it’s 1973 and get past the effects. As David says up thread, the story is quite interesting if you see it as a test of faith and a psychological battle to overcome guilt.
Blinks. Normally you have to pay extra for that.
Feminist standards.
So her paper is about why she goes to nail salons despite being resentful of nail salons?
I’ve heard of navel gazing but this is seeing your own ass, confusing it for your navel, and taking up permanent residence.
Ah yes, Rebecca Solnit and her “mansplaining” story. A guy read her book, thought it was great, and enthused about volubly, but didn’t know she was the author. Her response was to take offence at not being recognised and proceed to scold the world. Assuming it actually happened the way she said it did, or at all, she doesn’t come out of it well in my eyes. Still just a demand that her social interiors treat her with the deference she thinks she’s due.
RE Solnit and the origin of “mansplaining”…
Given the proliferation of “woke 8 year old” stories and the conspiratorial lying required to hold a feminist worldview I now realize she made up that story whole cloth.
EVEN IF TRUE, she showed her bigotry by assuming women are not capable of being obtusely patronizing…while coining a word that is obtusely patronizing.
And what Patrick Brown said.
Well, except this: Still just a demand that her social interiors treat her with deference
I too often wish the voices in my head would just shut up and let me watch tv for a minute.
I did go to Airborne school to earn my wings back in the dark ages (1978).
Even darker ages, my dad Army 11th Airborne 1946.
Thank you for your service, Richard.
I liked Exorcist 3 as well, Scott goes way over the top in it.
Virtue signal of note.
Little Pink Riding Hood?
I saw the original TE back in the day and the hype of “ambulances standing by” was a recognized early version of clickbait. It was William Castle in the 1950’s who started the gimmick of advertising “nurses on hand” etc to get people into the theater.
No one fainted inside the theater – maybe a few lighted headed moments when approaching the ticket booth and realizing the tickets were $5 apiece. (In 1973 this was more than double normal price)
PS — the book was much more disturbing and scary. I know of more than one person reading it who decided the book could not remain their bedroom while they slept.
I didn’t feel that way about, The Exorcist … I did feel that way about Helter Skelter.
Ha. We Gators laugh at you dinosaurs and your SMOD. Landlubbing schmucks.
We tiny mammals laughed at the dinosaurs too. And now we eat alligator sausage po boys with a side of jambalaya.
with a side of jambalaya.
Touche. For now. Though I’ll see your 1958, 2003 and 2007 with our 1996, 2006 and 2008 and raise you back-to-back basketball 2005–06/2006–07.
Oh yeah WTP?? Well I see all that and raise you 1993, 1999, 2013, and…what? Why are you laughing? Please stop laughing. God just kill me.
[ leaves room sobbing and re-watches 2013 highlights for 452nd time ]
though I’ll see your 1958, 2003 and 2007 with our 1996, 2006 and 2008 and raise you back-to-back basketball 2005–06/2006–07.
That’s getting way out of my area of knowledge, but I’ll tip my hat to any team of college or pro athletes, who are so much more skilled than me. True athletic achievement can be a marvel to see. Damn, how did he do that?
Our betters… at large.
Our betters… at large.
That video is scary — they might have well been wearing white hoods and carrying flaming torches.
A shotgun is needed.