Not only that, but I find that half of being a parent is parenting yourself.
My son clearly imitates my behaviors. Whether it's screen time or not interrupting or putting things away or so many things, I notice my own behavior and think, 'If I saw him doing this, I'd tell him to stop. So I should stop.'
But man... I don't wanna! Five more minutes! I'll do it later!
This is kind of a misapplication of this meme format: Mark Hamill is the obvious favorite. The whole point of the meme is that the chosen option is overlooked. I didn't even know DiMaggio voiced Joker.
I remember years ago, Disney shot scenes for A Wrinkle in Time on my block. They shut down the street for most of a week. They parked huge trailers all along the street, and neighbors couldn't get in or out during daytime hours. It was both cool to watch and also a big pain in the ass.
I take issue with this framing on multiple levels.
First: our goals should not be to score political points on Twitter: they should be to provide security, dignity, and political rights to the persecuted.
Second, inviting political activists exiled by a country we materially support to the US is like demanding ICE deport foreign nationals to nicer third countries: it misses the point completely. This shouldn't happen. And US lawmakers have the power to stop it, so that's what they should do.
Finally, the current Democratic leadership is Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies. Despite highly visible outliers, this whole premise assumes Democrats want to support human rights in Israel. This is like believing that Trump is working tirelessly to bring Epstein's coconspiritors to justice.
This really pushes the right buttons for me. One element of living in Los Angeles is seeing the influence of film location scouting and period recreation. Sometimes your favorite coffee shop is closed for the day because it looks like 1975 inside and someone needed that for a movie.
I love to imagine a main street being shut down, and a stage crew laying down a giant vinyl print of a asphalt with orange stripes on it (because the yellow looked orange in their reference pics), and people placing 3D printed shells of gigantic SUVs over small electric utility trucks, and a guy from a florist shop arguing with a production assistant because they put a big board painted like the facade of a bank in front of his shop, and he doesn't want to limit his plants' access to natural light, and an elderly person who participated in the event is arguing with a history consultant over how they wore their hats and scarves.
This has so much potential for fun characters and moments.
With all due respect, Democrats shouldn't be offering safe harbor to exiled dissidents: they should be threatening to sanction Israel if it exiles dissidents.
They should be a doing a lot of other things too, but we need to be much clearer with our demands. These people are Israeli, and deserve protection in their own country. I don't think they want to leave, I think they want their country to change.
I choose to believe that 10 years from now, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor will be leaders of a free Israel-Palestine, and the people who called for their denaturalization will be dead or living out life sentences for perpetrating atrocities.
I hope Abraham and Szor are careful, though. That future does assume that they survive long enough to reach it.
Either way, there can be no doubt that history will view their journalism and activism with great admiration.
I sometimes wonder what the outcome would be if instead of protecting privacy, we switched to nullifying the asymmetry of surveillance.
I'm not advocating for this: I know this idea is radical and unpopular and likely very dangerous. But if a majority of us concluded that we'd reached a point where protecting our individual privacy was no longer possible, what would it look like if we accepted a panopticon society, but through law and hacking, forced the information to be universally available to all?
What if my movements and political attitudes and sexual preferences were tracked by the government, but rather than being known exclusively to the state, this was public information, as were the identities of every member of law enforcement and their locations, associations, and thoughts too.
Would it level the playing field? Would it break the state's love of surveillance if the tools couldn't be contained for their use? I rather hope we don't reach the point where we need to test this.
In some sense, I'm simultaneously trying to stay aware of specific features and companies that I want to register displeasure of, but also there are clearly underlying technologies that are part of an open Pandora's box. We all need to realize that the ubiquity of microphones, data transfer, and AI summarization means that we need to be prepared to live in this world. We can work to hold certain companies accountable, but there's no going back to a time when it wasn't possible for a bad actor to record a room full of hundreds of people in a union hall or socialist meeting and then afterwards try and identify voices and build summaries over time of who are the most influential members and things like this. These are technologies that we're going to have to figure out how to navigate.
My hot take, though, is that although the rule-followers and the radicals both dismiss the others as ineffective and dangerous, both of these groups are unwittingly depending on each other to achieve an overthrow of fascism.
The original '89 Batman is still dope. I'm surprised @DigDoug@lemmy.world didn't like it.
What was off? Michael Keaton is one of those actors that I think can hold an audience even with weak material, and I didn't think that was weak material at all. And that's before we even get into Jack Nicholson's Joker. Was it bad? Or did it just feel boring or something?
It's pretty impressive how good the second one is considering what it's between.
I have an unpopular opinion in that I did not like Batman Begins. The direction is great. There's a great vibe to it all. The concept is there. But imo, the really high quality of Nolan's visual directing does so much work distracting people from how lacking the movie is in actual substance.
I don't know how he hit such gold with the second. It wasn't just the great performance from Ledger: the overall writing and story are just way, way better than the other two. Good for him, though.
Not only that, but I find that half of being a parent is parenting yourself.
My son clearly imitates my behaviors. Whether it's screen time or not interrupting or putting things away or so many things, I notice my own behavior and think, 'If I saw him doing this, I'd tell him to stop. So I should stop.'
But man... I don't wanna! Five more minutes! I'll do it later!
Setting a good example is a lot of work.
Which is a great, authentic answer
This is kind of a misapplication of this meme format: Mark Hamill is the obvious favorite. The whole point of the meme is that the chosen option is overlooked. I didn't even know DiMaggio voiced Joker.
I remember years ago, Disney shot scenes for A Wrinkle in Time on my block. They shut down the street for most of a week. They parked huge trailers all along the street, and neighbors couldn't get in or out during daytime hours. It was both cool to watch and also a big pain in the ass.
I take issue with this framing on multiple levels.
First: our goals should not be to score political points on Twitter: they should be to provide security, dignity, and political rights to the persecuted.
Second, inviting political activists exiled by a country we materially support to the US is like demanding ICE deport foreign nationals to nicer third countries: it misses the point completely. This shouldn't happen. And US lawmakers have the power to stop it, so that's what they should do.
Finally, the current Democratic leadership is Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies. Despite highly visible outliers, this whole premise assumes Democrats want to support human rights in Israel. This is like believing that Trump is working tirelessly to bring Epstein's coconspiritors to justice.
Ahh! I love this.
This really pushes the right buttons for me. One element of living in Los Angeles is seeing the influence of film location scouting and period recreation. Sometimes your favorite coffee shop is closed for the day because it looks like 1975 inside and someone needed that for a movie.
I love to imagine a main street being shut down, and a stage crew laying down a giant vinyl print of a asphalt with orange stripes on it (because the yellow looked orange in their reference pics), and people placing 3D printed shells of gigantic SUVs over small electric utility trucks, and a guy from a florist shop arguing with a production assistant because they put a big board painted like the facade of a bank in front of his shop, and he doesn't want to limit his plants' access to natural light, and an elderly person who participated in the event is arguing with a history consultant over how they wore their hats and scarves.
This has so much potential for fun characters and moments.
Yeah: the filmmakers themselves have said this repeatedly as well.
With all due respect, Democrats shouldn't be offering safe harbor to exiled dissidents: they should be threatening to sanction Israel if it exiles dissidents.
They should be a doing a lot of other things too, but we need to be much clearer with our demands. These people are Israeli, and deserve protection in their own country. I don't think they want to leave, I think they want their country to change.
I choose to believe that 10 years from now, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor will be leaders of a free Israel-Palestine, and the people who called for their denaturalization will be dead or living out life sentences for perpetrating atrocities.
I hope Abraham and Szor are careful, though. That future does assume that they survive long enough to reach it.
Either way, there can be no doubt that history will view their journalism and activism with great admiration.
I sometimes wonder what the outcome would be if instead of protecting privacy, we switched to nullifying the asymmetry of surveillance.
I'm not advocating for this: I know this idea is radical and unpopular and likely very dangerous. But if a majority of us concluded that we'd reached a point where protecting our individual privacy was no longer possible, what would it look like if we accepted a panopticon society, but through law and hacking, forced the information to be universally available to all?
What if my movements and political attitudes and sexual preferences were tracked by the government, but rather than being known exclusively to the state, this was public information, as were the identities of every member of law enforcement and their locations, associations, and thoughts too.
Would it level the playing field? Would it break the state's love of surveillance if the tools couldn't be contained for their use? I rather hope we don't reach the point where we need to test this.
Ulgh.
In some sense, I'm simultaneously trying to stay aware of specific features and companies that I want to register displeasure of, but also there are clearly underlying technologies that are part of an open Pandora's box. We all need to realize that the ubiquity of microphones, data transfer, and AI summarization means that we need to be prepared to live in this world. We can work to hold certain companies accountable, but there's no going back to a time when it wasn't possible for a bad actor to record a room full of hundreds of people in a union hall or socialist meeting and then afterwards try and identify voices and build summaries over time of who are the most influential members and things like this. These are technologies that we're going to have to figure out how to navigate.
It's a great meme!
My hot take, though, is that although the rule-followers and the radicals both dismiss the others as ineffective and dangerous, both of these groups are unwittingly depending on each other to achieve an overthrow of fascism.
Walkin' on the Sun, by Smashmouth
It's from '97, but for anyone who wants to know what the end of the twentieth century sounded like, this, imo, is it.
Source?
I think Eternals will be viewed much more kindly in 10 years. I loved it.
This is so bleak. I'm constantly trying to stave off doomerism, and focus on what we can do to help, but this article is just a gut punch.
Thanks for sharing that skit! I hadn't seen that before!
The original '89 Batman is still dope. I'm surprised @DigDoug@lemmy.world didn't like it.
What was off? Michael Keaton is one of those actors that I think can hold an audience even with weak material, and I didn't think that was weak material at all. And that's before we even get into Jack Nicholson's Joker. Was it bad? Or did it just feel boring or something?
It's pretty impressive how good the second one is considering what it's between.
I have an unpopular opinion in that I did not like Batman Begins. The direction is great. There's a great vibe to it all. The concept is there. But imo, the really high quality of Nolan's visual directing does so much work distracting people from how lacking the movie is in actual substance.
I don't know how he hit such gold with the second. It wasn't just the great performance from Ledger: the overall writing and story are just way, way better than the other two. Good for him, though.
Niiice.