Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sux2Bgoogle, if every link is a breach.
IANAL, don't know if this disclaimer is sufficient, at all, but I don't have any clue who you are all talking about . But if I suggest going to Google, and searching on "entertainer", isn't it almost certain that pretty much any site on which the entertainer is outed is going to come up somewhere in Googles exhaustive webcrawl? Add a few more obvious terms (I'm not going to suggest any), and you're almost certain to have the name pop right up on you, if it's anywhere out there.
I have not done this search, I don't even want to do it, I'm personally not interested much in who the person is. But the issue of suppression is interesting.
-
Chuck Norris would still kick his ass.
Obama may be the leader of the free world, but Chuck Norris doesn't do press ups, he presses the world down.
-
I do wish people would stop implying it's a good career move.
Doesn't seem like it's necessarily a bad one either, though. If that's the demographic buying the music, then they might love it.
-
>Was it 'the entertainer' or the judge who made a gagging order?
The judge of course. Defendants don't get to make orders, and even if they did they certainly wouldn't have the strength of law behind them.
I think quentin was actually making a crude pun.
-
The two situations just aren't comparable, any more than it would be comparable to start publishing the names of children who go through the youth court just because we do so for adults. Context matters in a fundamental way.
Different rule for children, sure. Not convinced about different rule for celebrities.
-
Human error on human error, incompetence on top of what turned out with 20/20 hindsight to be lethally bad calls...
Not to mention that it's pretty hard to stop people who don't care what happens to them (like suicide bombers).
-
Is it 'objective alienation' if I utterly fail to try to find out who you are all talking about, because it's subject to name suppression?
-
There was no such graphic representation, sorry if you read that into something I wrote.
I think I did get the wrong end of the stick there. Your freefalling man image was not from the show. I can see now that you specifically mention that most of what he talks about are the pieces of people left afterward.
-
The odd case like Gage would be well worth taking a few days to consider in order to protect the reputation of the institution and the mental health of the community.
Reputation seems the bigger concern here. I'm actually pretty happy with the mental self-defence of the average citizen. Questions they might stick their hand up for after the presentation are not the same as what they might, upon reflection, think. Tying back to pre-threadjack moments, I think the recent referendum showed this pretty clearly. It's interesting that a huge number of people voted no, but piss-all turned up for the march, despite the huge financial backing. People aren't as stupid as all that, after all, and are capable of holding nuanced views.
It seems likely that a lot of people Gio says walked out of the show were similarly disgusted. I personally would have, particularly during the parts where they showed the people dying graphically. I'm all for fictional graphic violence, or controlled consensual violence, but can't stand the real thing. Couldn't watch Schindler's List, got too upset after about 20 minutes. I don't think it was shit, it just freaked me out too much, it was too real.
-
I think it's more than just dodging guilt. It's also how 9/11 was used to justify 2 wars. That does need a strong and consistent narrative. I'm not really surprised that people readily dismiss all and everything that anyone but the official government sources say regarding the affair - to do so was deeply linked to a lack of patriotism, anti-Americanism, etc. It is weird to think that it wasn't that long ago either.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 826 827 828 829 830 … 1066 Older→ First