I mean I agree with this part. That’s why I’m commenting on this site and not the other one, but that doesn’t mean we have to pretend the other one doesn’t exist and that we don’t care what’s going on there. I agree that everyone should move here, but nevertheless, most of them aren’t, and I cannot control that. The fact is that most people are not deep enough into the internet to make a pros and cons list of social media sites. They just use what other people use, or what pops up first on Google. We are neither of those things, and until we are, I have a vested interest in what happens at the other place.

Not in a way that’s accessible to casual audiences. You can watch literally any show, and chances are there’s a sub where you can go talk about it. That was not the case 10 years ago. Unless your show had a cult following, the only people to talk about it with were people you knew. I hope that someday we can turn this site into the same kind of thing, but we aint there yet.

I am so tired of this sentiment. You’re not wrong about the corporate stuff, but blaming people for wanting it to get better serves no purpose. For all its flaws, Reddit had something that no other site, not even this one, has been able to remotely replicate. I didn’t use the site for news, politics, memes, or mindless scrolling. I used it because it was literally the only place to discuss niche topics and interests.

Whether we like it or not, it’s the only place where a lot of these niche communities exist. Users that were here since Digg will find a new home, but the one who can barely use a Macbook may not. And I’m all for helping as many of those communities migrate, but the truth is that for many communities, especially the ones less technically inclined, the death of Reddit means the death of that community, and that’s really fucking sad.

deleted by creator

Who in the actual fuck uses notepad?

Whether or not you personally agree with the military’s choice of language is not relevant. You’re assuming the trainer agrees with your political views, but you weren’t there, so you have no idea what they said or didn’t say.

You’ve obviously never been in the military, because it’s definitely “females”.

In other words, you have the right to be an asshole, but if you do it too much, others can invoke their right be assholes right back to you.

He’s not saying they’re right wing governments, just that they’re highly authoritarian, which is something that leftists, on average, tend to be against, so if someone claims to be “left” but supports Russia, they likely have a poor understanding of one of those things.

There ya go! I knew there had to be a couple out there!

There ya go! I knew there had to be a couple out there!

I do, but only if it’s built up properly. This is also true of musical numbers and fight scenes. If built up properly, they can be incredibly cathartic and the best parts of the film, but if not, they grind the plot to a halt.

The reason so many people hate these kinds of scenes is that most screenwriters are really bad at creating tension. The purpose of these scenes is to release emotional tension, so without building this, they feel pointless and jarring. The best parody of this is in Men in Tights when Robin bursts into a love song out of nowhere and it scares the hell out of Marian.

I’m trying to provide examples of love scenes I actually like in films, and to be honest, I’m coming up blank. I think it may just be a lot more difficult to generate romantic tension in the average timespan of a film. It’s easier in television, where you get more time to tell the story. I think my favorite intimate scene in tv is in Game of Thrones season 3 when John and Ygritte are in the cave.

At least that scene is funny and develops the plot. I think they’re talking more about stuff like all those 90s movies that have the plot grind to a halt so two characters can punch each other for ten minutes.

You’re coming dangerously close to re-inventing the kilt

I feel like it’s more about distribution of responsibility. If you have a king, he’s either a good king and runs things well, or a bad king and runs things poorly. A King’s success is generally measured by the quality of his kingdom, which is at least somewhat tied to the wellbeing of subjects.

In a corporation, even if you have a comparitively “good” CEO, he’s still answerable to the shareholders, and thus obligated to raise the stock value by any means necessary, a factor which is not necessarily dependent on the wellbeing of his employees.