|Caminante Nocturno |
Everybody knows that the real culprit is going to be some tangentially related person who had nothing to do with the episode's red herring.
It turns out Anita was shot by a farmer who mistook her for a fox.
"Wait, didn't Sarkeesian also do a video where she criticized the game Super Princess Peach?"
"Yeah, but what does...OH MY GOD."
(cut to Shigeru Miyamoto burying a body behind his shed)
"It turns out Anita was shot by a farmer who mistook her for a fox."
A Toucan maybe, not a fox.
Nice touch with the hoop earrings.
But where's the plaid flannel? This is so unrealistic.
Glad to see SVU tackling ETHICS IN GAMING JOURNALISM.
|Unmerciful Crushing Force |
Wouldn't it be more accurate if she cancelled her speech despite the warning being seen as not credible?
The threats were a distraction so that she could rob a bank.
Oh wait, that's the next Die Hard movie.
ALL THREATS ARE CREDIBLE. WE ARE ALL IN DANGER AND WE NEED POLICE EVERWHERE OR ELSE WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Homer, stop being a putz.
Never mind that credibility is subjective. Or that forcing a target to evaluate a threat can be harmful to a person's state of mind. . A threat that isn't credible is still a threat. It's not free speech. It's usually the opposite, an attempt to intimidate others into silence. It's not protected speech, and it never has been. It's not legitimate discourse, and it never has been. It's a crime, and it always has been.
We've been over this before, John. Fortunately for all of us, you're wrong; it has never been a crime to make idle threats. In order for a prosecutor to weasle his way out from under the crushing weight of our civil liberties, the person being burned at the stake must have made what is known in legal circles as a "true threat".
You might not like civil liberties, Mr Holmes, but this is what they are, and no amount of objectively false statements on your part will change that.
Mr Kleenex - The federal government has always reserved the right to treat threats to it's own sovereignty far less liberally than it treats the lives and safety of private citizens. However, it's worth noting that _even with threats to the life of the President_, something which is commonly believed to be illegal, and is in fact covered by it's own felony under US Federal law, the "true threat" test still needs to be overcome. A perfect example of this was the Supreme Court Ruling in Watts v The United States.
Nowadays, of course, the NSA woukd probably make young master Watts quietly disappear, with or without rule of law, but the distinction between "true threats" and verbal shitposting is very real and technically still exists today.
John Holmes Motherfucker
What I said was indeed objectively false, of course there needs to be some standard of credibility for a threat to be a crime, but, Homer, you're still a putz.
I notice that according to one article, the supreme court hasn't defined TRUE THREAT, and nowhere does it say that TRUE THREAT is the ONLY standard for a threat to be a crime. A terroristic threat is defined by the intent to terrorize, to influence with fear.
Under terroristic threat, Wikipedia gives the example of Texas
Sec. 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance, or other public place;
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
(5) place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
(6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
But the main reason why you're a PUTZ, Homer, is because you're bringing this up now. Are you saying that the fictional example given here is not reasonably a crime? What's your point?
John Holmes Motherfucker
I get why this woman isn't going to be intimidated from having her event, by why doesn't she want a visible police presence? Seems dumb.
Homer, your civil liberties end where my creepy attraction to Youtube personalities one-third my age begins, PAL!
Hey John! Here's a young white Youtube lady who thinks the whole cause is nonsense! She's cuter AND funnier than Boxy or Anita! Quite a moral dilemma, old chap!
So I'm a putz... for being right? Huh?
The issue with deciding what does and does not constitute a "true threat" is that, up to and including now, a "true threat" has been only loosely defined by the courts, relying mainly on things like the "reasonable person" test. This is a problem because, with the mounting spiral of assaults on free speech, and the climate of irrational fear and paranoia that is gradually pushing back liberalism in this country, it's becoming increasingly less likely that an informal, common-law approach to threat interpretation will sustain the First Amendment. If even old people like you, Mr Holmes - people who presumably lived through the Red Scare, Vietnam, and the Civil Rights Era - are unaware of the fact that yes, actually, the majority of the time threats ARE protected by the First Amendment, then what does that say for free speech in the coming years, when your generation dies off and leaves us with only people weened in the shadow of the War on Terror?
Also, Mr Holmes, I'm not even going to touch on the incongruity of trying to cite *Texas terrorism laws*, considering that this is also the state that wants to ban Muslims and put landmines on the border with Mexico. However, note that the only possible relevant section is this:
(2) place any person in fear **of imminent serious bodily injury**;
Note the emphasis. Even in Texas, birthplace of the Great American NeoCon, a threat still needs to be a "true threat" (i.e. reflect a potential for imminent, serious bodily harm) before they'll tar and feather you "fer bein' one a them evil terr'ists".
John Holmes Motherfucker
You fucking putz.
Readers of English will note that there's a difference between a standard based "what will make a person fearful" and a standard based on "what a reasonable person will interpret as the intent to do harm of the person making the threats" Words mean things, Homer. Different words mean different things.
The majority of threats are protected? Don't even know what that means. Is someone counting threats?
What I said was wrong because I was taking a certain level of credibility for granted as implied by the definition of "threat". Sure, te definition is broader. Okay, obviously idle threats aren't crimes, and that's why no one is talking about obviously idle threats. So I was wrong when I wrote that, and you were right when you pointed that out.
The rest of the time, you were wrong as fuck, and you remain wrong as fuck, because you're defending those who would deny others the right to speak, and you think you're defending freedom. Threats are used to silence people, and often they are silenced, and you never hear about that. And THAT'S why you're a fucking putz.
Look, I know there's a case of a person being prosecuted unjustly on this very same Texas law. I think you were in on that discussion. We're both on the same side of that case, but that's not we're talking about here, is it?
JHM stop arguing with these guys and get back to posting more Nostalgia Girl.
If you're going to follow a cute young girl, let's throw Cristina Rad in the ring:
Her head is screwed on straight, she's Romanian, but best of all, she isn't aware she sounds kind of like Roseanne Roseannadanna (pitched down an octave).
I'm fond of this one too, though I admit she's got something of a mannish aspect:
Her head is screwed on straight? Boner poison.
I was just recommending two YouTube videosters that you might enjoy. I like the second's videos much more, but I have to admit she looks a little severe.
Intro music by Darude - Sandstorm
Wait, is her last name actually "Punjabi?"
John Holmes Motherfucker
Punjabi, it should be noted, is an actual name, like Lindy English, or French Montana.
I know Olivia is going to put those gamers in their place.
When she boldy issues her manifesto to the World via the internet they will be suitably chastised.
What about the part where it turns out the victim sent threats to himself/herself to generate publicity?
Maybe the victim rapes herself and pins it on the Cult of Personality surrounding the Mario Bros.
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious |
Time to cook up a GUI in Visual Basic and backtrace the IP.
All of the lead SVU folks are going to be all like "uh..gaming, we don't know anything about this whole culture" so they get some young Asian guy to school them by typing a bunch of things on a keyboard really fast to hack into the mainframes to show them how to "pwn noobs". DUN DUNNN!
What are the current betting odds on them using Atari style bleep-bloop sound effects during the gaming scenes?
I'm guessing it'll be another made up cgi movie disguised as a video game like the other one. Seems weird they'd do that since Microsoft like pretty much owns an NBC channel..
To save money, they'll have one of the SVU-ites be a "closet gamer" who has secretly been playing WoW for the past decade, but only reveals their dark, digital secret now when it's handy to the plot and they don't have to pay a new face to speak.
Ice-T will discover that his estranged daughter has been working with Gamergate, and SVU's only hope of catching the perp rests in father & daughter reconciling.
I would have pegged B D Wong as the closet gamer, but for all I know he is long gone from this disaster of a show.
|Killer Joe |
Someone mashing buttons on an xbox controller for me.
I'm really amazed this show is still on the air. I'm pretty sure they've exhausted every possible kink, sex-oriented murder, and red herring method of screwing up a DNA test (how many chimeras have been part of the plot now?). I can only assume they've just looped back to plots from previous shows like the Simpsons does and nobody has noticed.
pretty sure I've never seen a sample accidently contaminated by a wet fart yet
They're hacking my sphincter!
Does JK Simmons still show up on L&O shows as the shrink? Because that would be the height of awesome to have him appear and make Portal 2 references.
ha! I just finished Portal 1 and half of the Half-Life Trilogy. Now I need to get Portal 2. Are those stories connected? Like, is the Portal what caused the shit to happen in Half-Life in the first place? That's what I've always thought but I never finish games that I start. So spoil away!
They're related in that they happen in the same setting. So far, it's tangential.
Binro the Heretic
As far as I can tell from just playing the games, Black Mesa and Aperture were direct competitors working on teleportation technology.
Aperture's approach to the problem led to the creation of the portal gun which, surprisingly, seems pretty safe and stable. Black Mesa's approach to the problem was to create wormholes through other dimensions of existence which tore a huge hole between our dimension and a dimension full of cosmic horrors.
The first "Portal" game likely takes place prior to the events of the first "Half Life". The above-ground Aperture facility looks abandoned & run down, but still intact. The events of "Portal 2" likely take place after the Black Mesa disaster and the subsequent takeover of Earth by the invaders. When Chell finally makes it to the surface, we see the Aperture above-ground facility is gone, replaced by an enormous plain full of high grass. Only the beaten-up maintenance shed, which disguises the top of the secret elevator, remains intact.
The only direct connections I'm aware of are:
1. The existence of both companies in the same universe (they're mentioned in all games).
2. The world is in a state of apocalypse after the events of HL1.
3. Both games mention/allude to a vanished Aperture ship called The Borealis. This ship's berth can be found in Portal 2 and is shown as a future plot point for (hopefully) Half-Life 3.
But seriously, get Portal 2. It's fun, you get more GLaDOS, more of Aperture's history, and after you're done, you can try out the Infinite Testing Initiative.
I haven't seen this show in a while and I was shocked how old Mariska and Ice-T look.
Why has this show been on for sixteen years? Also, you'd think that after sixteen years they'd learn how to act.
I've seen local community theater less awkward than this.
It's pretty inexplicable: long running shows like The Simpsons and the Big Bang Theory continue because they are stuck with a moneymaker that might have been funny once, but just continues. If you're making over a million an episode, I'd do anythingBut L&O is different. I loved regular L&O and still do with I catch it, and CI with V.D. was great, because he's like.. god or something, I dunno.
Police dramas/proceedurals are pretty standard fare. L&O is a recognized brand, sex sells, and people fall into viewing habits.
I'm guessing people like SVU in spite of the ridiculous sex-plots in the same way people watch NCIS or CSI in spite of the ridiculous use of technology.
The thing that cured me of watching any network cop shows was seeing "The Wire." After that, everything else was not only community theater, it was community theater written by and for kindergarteners.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Mariska certainly looks older, but she still looks great. The weariness of the character goes well with her aging, not unlike Vincent D'Onofrio in "Criminal Intent". Unlike Vincent D'Onofrio, however, there aren't a whole lot of other good roles for a middle aged woman to move onto, even a gorgeous middle aged woman with reasonably impressive acting chops.
I have a friend who watches this show for hours on end when they have those weekend SVU rapeathons on USA, and I can report that the ridiculous plots are part of the appeal. On SVU, they usually identify the perp at about the 30 minute mark, and then... things get fucked up!
1. I'm trying to imagine them calling it a "rapeathon" and getting away with it.
2. The perp is nearly always the person with the most dialog and/or the "special guest star."
I fucking love grease-hair and his overblown testosterone. They went right from Meloni to that guy, didn't they?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|