TV thread

User avatar
Ding Dong Johnson
Crap Bag
Posts: 35487
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:42 am
Location: Durnsville
x 1035
x 7275

Re: TV thread

Postby Ding Dong Johnson » Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:39 pm

If you have not yet watched the Axios on HBO interview with Zuckerberg and are thinking to yourself that he could not possibly be more unlikeable, well have I got a television recommendation for you.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Derwood
Stall Monitor
Posts: 72703
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: 375 Miles East of Wrigley
x 1464
x 3196

Re: TV thread

Postby Derwood » Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:35 pm

Flipping through channels this morning, land on The Twilight Zone. First thing I see is Peter Falk in brown face, playing a Central American Che-esque guerilla fighter. Oof
0 x

User avatar
Brian
Hall of Fame
Posts: 29957
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Chicago
x 44
x 5728
Contact:

Re: TV thread

Postby Brian » Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:52 pm

Alan Sepinwall's review of Fargo Season 4 (based on the first 9 of 11 episodes)

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-revi ... w-1057189/

I kind of skimmed around it because I don't want to know too much, but he seems to be high on it rating it 4/5 stars. But look at this note -

(*) Can we pause a moment and reflect on the series’ endless supply of wonderfully absurd names? Previous installments gave us, among many others, Nikki Swango, Gloria Burgle, Molly Solverson, and the Kitchen Brothers. Here, character actor and national treasure Glynn Turman plays Cannon’s adviser, Doctor Senator, who is neither a Senator nor a doctor (though he has degrees in both law and economics from Howard), while Oraetta works for the arrogantly patrician Dr. Harvard (Stephen Spencer), educational bona fides unknown. And that’s before we get into, say, the bank-robbing lesbian couple, Zelmare Roulette (Karen Aldridge) and Swanee Capp (Kelsey Asbille), or that there are kids named Zero (Jameson Braccioforte) and Satchel (Rodney L Jones III), or that Dick Wickware’s nickname is Deafy, or… Just sit back and enjoy this bounty of nomenclature.


Dick Wickware is Timonthy Olyphant's character.
3 x

User avatar
Ding Dong Johnson
Crap Bag
Posts: 35487
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:42 am
Location: Durnsville
x 1035
x 7275

Re: TV thread

Postby Ding Dong Johnson » Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:49 pm

1 x
Image

mike2482
Starter
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:12 pm
Location: Terre Haute IN
x 15
x 16

Re: TV thread

Postby mike2482 » Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:59 am

Has anybody watched “The Social Delimma”? I haven’t yet, but the people than I’ve seen on suggesting it are either reasonable, critical thinkers, or have been QAnon/Trump fanboys.
0 x

User avatar
Transmogrified Tiger
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 56928
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:23 pm
Location: Greater St. Louis
x 578
x 7512

Re: TV thread

Postby Transmogrified Tiger » Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:28 pm

mike2482 wrote:Has anybody watched “The Social Delimma”? I haven’t yet, but the people than I’ve seen on suggesting it are either reasonable, critical thinkers, or have been QAnon/Trump fanboys.


I haven't seen it, but I did see this as a maybe telling description of it:

1 x

User avatar
The Logan
Superstar
Posts: 15821
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:03 am
Location: Southport Corridor
x 7108
x 2401

Re: TV thread

Postby The Logan » Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:53 pm

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
mike2482 wrote:Has anybody watched “The Social Delimma”? I haven’t yet, but the people than I’ve seen on suggesting it are either reasonable, critical thinkers, or have been QAnon/Trump fanboys.


I haven't seen it, but I did see this as a maybe telling description of it:



Accurate, but that doesn't negate anything that they talk about. You can criticize them for cashing in on this stuff and then spilling the beans, but they also could've just STFU and not shared any of this information and laughed as the world burns. So process that however you want.

The doc doesn't really share anything we don't kind of already know at a surface level, but it puts it into perspective of just how deep it goes and how horsefeathers up it actually is. It's worth a watch.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 84223
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 15074
x 17465

Re: TV thread

Postby Sammy Sofa » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:00 pm

They're not "spilling the beans;" they're just finding a new way to cash in on the shady horsefeathers they've done.
0 x

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 9668
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 457
x 4029

Re: TV thread

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:02 pm

Yeah, a line needs to be drawn between whistle-blowing and profiteering. Sometimes it's easy to do so. Like in this case.
1 x

User avatar
The Logan
Superstar
Posts: 15821
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:03 am
Location: Southport Corridor
x 7108
x 2401

Re: TV thread

Postby The Logan » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:10 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:They're not "spilling the beans;" they're just finding a new way to cash in on the shady horsefeathers they've done.


lol, yeah they're making mint off of being interviewed for this documentary.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 84223
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 15074
x 17465

Re: TV thread

Postby Sammy Sofa » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:18 pm

The Logan wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:They're not "spilling the beans;" they're just finding a new way to cash in on the shady horsefeathers they've done.


lol, yeah they're making mint off of being interviewed for this documentary.


Ah, so the line is a specific dollar amount, gotcha.
0 x

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 9668
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 457
x 4029

Re: TV thread

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:21 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
The Logan wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:They're not "spilling the beans;" they're just finding a new way to cash in on the shady horsefeathers they've done.


lol, yeah they're making mint off of being interviewed for this documentary.


Ah, so the line is a specific dollar amount, gotcha.

Yeah, it's likely social standing currency that is the coin of the realm in cases like this.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 84223
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 15074
x 17465

Re: TV thread

Postby Sammy Sofa » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:29 pm

I just never understand any kind of roundabout defense for turds like this. Like, nobody here was disagreeing with or taking shots at the message itself, just the horsefeathers messengers, yet right away someone is willing to offer even a halfhearted defense, like we should appreciate them and what they're doing.

Why? Why not just value the message/warning, AND recognize that these are the dickheads responsible, and they're still just finding ways to profit off of it? Why try to vindicate or excuse them in any way?
0 x

User avatar
Transmogrified Tiger
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 56928
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:23 pm
Location: Greater St. Louis
x 578
x 7512

Re: TV thread

Postby Transmogrified Tiger » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:39 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:Why not just value the message/warning, AND recognize that these are the dickheads responsible, and they're still just finding ways to profit off of it? Why try to vindicate or excuse them in any way?


Out of curiosity, does that mean it's basically impossible to deliver that message/warning without profiting off it in your eyes, or is there a different medium where they'd be seen as properly repentant?
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 84223
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 15074
x 17465

Re: TV thread

Postby Sammy Sofa » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:42 pm

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:Why not just value the message/warning, AND recognize that these are the dickheads responsible, and they're still just finding ways to profit off of it? Why try to vindicate or excuse them in any way?


Out of curiosity, does that mean it's basically impossible to deliver that message/warning without profiting off it in your eyes, or is there a different medium where they'd be seen as properly repentant?


I mean, I feel like this isn't some tough nut to crack. How about just sitting down for some interviews with reporters instead of producing a glossy, pricey Netflix documentary? Or, hey, if you MUST get paid for you detailing your horsefeathers history, horsefeathering donate it all.

I would just prefer if we stopped tripping over ourselves to let these very, very willful villains get any kind of redemption. You want them in your doc? Great, then make them look what they actually are instead of some kind of noble whistle blower (which, IMO, is very much what this doc does).
0 x

User avatar
Transmogrified Tiger
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 56928
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:23 pm
Location: Greater St. Louis
x 578
x 7512

Re: TV thread

Postby Transmogrified Tiger » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:50 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:Why not just value the message/warning, AND recognize that these are the dickheads responsible, and they're still just finding ways to profit off of it? Why try to vindicate or excuse them in any way?


Out of curiosity, does that mean it's basically impossible to deliver that message/warning without profiting off it in your eyes, or is there a different medium where they'd be seen as properly repentant?


I mean, I feel like this isn't some tough nut to crack. How about just sitting down for some interviews with reporters instead of producing a glossy, pricey Netflix documentary? Or, hey, if you MUST get paid for you detailing your horsefeathers history, horsefeathering donate it all.

I would just prefer if we stopped tripping over ourselves to let these very, very willful villains get any kind of redemption. You want them in your doc? Great, then make them look what they actually are instead of some kind of noble whistle blower (which, IMO, is very much what this doc does).


I think you can make the argument that the glossy Netflix documentary will have greater reach for the cause than an investigative journalism piece(as sad a commentary as that is), but not a hill I'm willing to die on. I tend to not have much moral judgment on the medium for their message since if they were after profit/cache there are easier ways to do that(keep working in the industry, use that experience in another industry, etc), but I don't care if blame for their career profiteering bleeds into blame for their 'activism', fair or otherwise.
0 x

NOLA
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 3:17 am
Location: Bywater, New Orleans
x 1345
x 1048
Contact:

Re: TV thread

Postby NOLA » Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:01 pm

This sounds so much like The Lincoln Project debate. Who again was arguing so vehemently against them here? :wink:
0 x

User avatar
Derwood
Stall Monitor
Posts: 72703
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: 375 Miles East of Wrigley
x 1464
x 3196

Re: TV thread

Postby Derwood » Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:03 pm

I haven't watched this yet, but how do we know that these guys got paid to participate? Most documentaries don't pay much (if anything) to the people being filmed
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 84223
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 15074
x 17465

Re: TV thread

Postby Sammy Sofa » Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:14 pm

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:I think you can make the argument that the glossy Netflix documentary will have greater reach for the cause than an investigative journalism piece(as sad a commentary as that is), but not a hill I'm willing to die on.


This presumes their intentions are primarily altruistic in the first place. As for the rest:

I tend to not have much moral judgment on the medium for their message since if they were after profit/cache there are easier ways to do that(keep working in the industry, use that experience in another industry, etc), but I don't care if blame for their career profiteering bleeds into blame for their 'activism', fair or otherwise.


And tying in to Derwood's question about how much they get paid (again, the dollar amount isn't the point), this is pretty much exactly what the tweet thread you linked to is making fun of. This is what tech bro-types do, over and over again. None of these people are putting anything on the line with these "revelations." They're not putting themselves out of work, or risking being ostracized or cast out from the tech world. If anything, this kind of thing puts them MORE in demand because they're now a Name. Like, what tech company is going to give a horsefeathers about someone trash talking Facebook and Twitter? Absolutely nobody. All they're going to see this as is basically a fancy resume for what these people have done and are able to do, plus now you get the superficial bonus of hiring somebody who some will inexplicably see as a "good tech person " (spoiler: those people don't exist).

Basically this thing is a self-masturbatory feeder system that only serves to criticize already massively unpopular targets/people, while allowing the rest of the industry to either feel like it dodged a bullet for now, or, even worse, pat itself on the back, both of which are the type of things the sources for this doc are VERY much doing.

Again: its real easy to take value in the message, and horsefeathering HATE the messenger. There's zero point in trying to defend them in any way. Hell, if anything, if you want to emphasize how disturbing the subjects of the doc are, don't let these people sugarcoat who they still are, and certainly don't horsefeathering do it for them.
0 x

User avatar
The Logan
Superstar
Posts: 15821
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:03 am
Location: Southport Corridor
x 7108
x 2401

Re: TV thread

Postby The Logan » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:32 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:I just never understand any kind of roundabout defense for turds like this. Like, nobody here was disagreeing with or taking shots at the message itself, just the horsefeathers messengers, yet right away someone is willing to offer even a halfhearted defense, like we should appreciate them and what they're doing.


I wasn't defending them, I was critiquing your foaming-at-the-mouth opportunity to criticise anyone who earned money in the tech industry. "No one is disagreeing with the message" but when you don't discuss the message and instead criticize the people who deliver it for being greedy you give off the impression that the message should be inherently less valuable because it came from the mouth of someone who profited from the things they are talking about.

But the fact that you were so quick to jump down the throats of these people shows you're so clueless about the subject matter because, had you watched the documentary, you'd realize the people that were interviewed are not these monsters who profited off the things they're coming forward about. There's one guy out of the 9 people they interviewed in there you can accurately point that finger at, and even then he's not some rich billionaire horsefeathers who masterminded what social media became today. The rest are activists, advocates, researchers, and professors speaking out against social media ethics.
1 x
Image

User avatar
minnesotacubsfan
Superstar
Posts: 19131
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:27 pm
Location: I CANT BREATHE
x 2610
x 1040

Re: TV thread

Postby minnesotacubsfan » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:41 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:I just never understand any kind of roundabout defense for turds like this. Like, nobody here was disagreeing with or taking shots at the message itself, just the horsefeathers messengers, yet right away someone is willing to offer even a halfhearted defense, like we should appreciate them and what they're doing.

Why? Why not just value the message/warning, AND recognize that these are the dickheads responsible, and they're still just finding ways to profit off of it? Why try to vindicate or excuse them in any way?



totally agree, its how I feel about government contractors

what is it that you do again?
1 x
Image

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 84223
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 15074
x 17465

Re: TV thread

Postby Sammy Sofa » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:51 pm

minnesotacubsfan wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:I just never understand any kind of roundabout defense for turds like this. Like, nobody here was disagreeing with or taking shots at the message itself, just the horsefeathers messengers, yet right away someone is willing to offer even a halfhearted defense, like we should appreciate them and what they're doing.

Why? Why not just value the message/warning, AND recognize that these are the dickheads responsible, and they're still just finding ways to profit off of it? Why try to vindicate or excuse them in any way?



totally agree, its how I feel about government contractors

what is it that you do again?


I have no delusions about how much my company/work sucks. I'm also not sitting over here trying to pass myself off as somehow separate from what I do/who I work for. I made my choices, and I don't get to pretend like I get to be the good guy when it comes to my work.
0 x

User avatar
minnesotacubsfan
Superstar
Posts: 19131
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:27 pm
Location: I CANT BREATHE
x 2610
x 1040

Re: TV thread

Postby minnesotacubsfan » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:52 pm

my apologies
0 x
Image

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 84223
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 15074
x 17465

Re: TV thread

Postby Sammy Sofa » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:10 pm

The Logan wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:I just never understand any kind of roundabout defense for turds like this. Like, nobody here was disagreeing with or taking shots at the message itself, just the horsefeathers messengers, yet right away someone is willing to offer even a halfhearted defense, like we should appreciate them and what they're doing.


I wasn't defending them, I was critiquing your foaming-at-the-mouth opportunity to criticise anyone who earned money in the tech industry. "No one is disagreeing with the message" but when you don't discuss the message and instead criticize the people who deliver it for being greedy you give off the impression that the message should be inherently less valuable because it came from the mouth of someone who profited from the things they are talking about.

But the fact that you were so quick to jump down the throats of these people shows you're so clueless about the subject matter because, had you watched the documentary, you'd realize the people that were interviewed are not these monsters who profited off the things they're coming forward about. There's one guy out of the 9 people they interviewed in there you can accurately point that finger at, and even then he's not some rich billionaire horsefeathers who masterminded what social media became today. The rest are activists, advocates, researchers, and professors speaking out against social media ethics.


Oh, please. I did watch it, and people like Rosenstein and the Pinterest dude are exactly who that tweet was making fun of/who I'm griping about. The documentary should be able to stand on its own without giving sympathetic voices to turds like that. Let's not pretend this is The Fog of War or some horsefeathers. And Center for Humane Technology is exactly the kind of nebulous bag of fart-smelling that Silicon Valley would make fun of; they're the epitome of a towering collection of platitudes and buzz words and not much else. Their whole existence is primarily charging huge fees to talk to tech millionaires and billionaires about how "the ethics of tech" need to be responsibly self-regulated...somehow. They and their ilk are just the current version of this TED Talk-type horsefeathers from the last decade:



I mean, the ultimate thrust from most of the folks in the documentary is completely self-defeating in how it's built up like we've been completely bamboozled and damaged....but the information/social media systems ultimately aren't the problem and can still be salvaged with little change. Bulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll horsefeathers. It's the SV version of how ecology was sold as being on the backs of individual people recycling. The actual conclusion should be, "holy horsefeathers; this stuff is a nightmare, it's hopelessly horsefeathers, and it should be torn down/broken up and other things should take their place." Not, "well, Facebook COULD work if everyone involved was nicer."
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 84223
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 15074
x 17465

Re: TV thread

Postby Sammy Sofa » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:38 pm

It also reminded me of the ongoing cottage industry of economic disaster documentaries that have steadily come out since the 2008 crash, that are almost all anchored around one or more financial bro-type who can't stop smiling talking about all of the evil, wretched horsefeathers he saw and took part in, and, almost inevitably, they will all end with some kind of harrowing testimonial of the bro going, "and I'd do it all again/and there's a million more just like me out there right now/etc./etc.," and yet they're framed like these sources are somehow better than the rest of their ilk because they're sitting there rattling of their crimes, or that they're somehow worthy of our sympathy or even admiration.

Like, say what you will about how ridiculous it was that there were TWO big budget docs about the Fyre Festival debacle; at least both of those had the decency to make everyone involved look like the complete wastes that they are.

Think of it this way: this is all building up to there eventually being the tech industry getting it's own variation of the movie adaptation of The Big Short, and that's going to be 10 times more of a debacle than that self-congratulatory horsefeathers heap was.
0 x


Return to “Social”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gflore34, muntjack and 9 guests