Iâm still not sure who the target audience of the movie is. Was the first Avatar movie so memorable that it warranted sequels? I seem to recall it was mostly marketed on its CGI being cutting edge at the time.
2 Likes
It was, at the time, the most profitable movie of all time by a decent margin.
Money>Memorable.
1 Like
Yes, the first movie became a success because of its technical novelty. It was a groundbreakingly immersive 3D movie with top notch, seamless CGI. Plot? Nobody watched it for the plot.
I imagine the sequels will be popular for similar reasons. More of the same, except UNDERWATER!
1 Like
Scotland is very pretty and nice.
But is also immune to all the hot weather elsewhere is having, and I am Not Ok with it being 11 degrees C here ._.
/lizard-like problems
1 Like
Summer? Never stood a chance here
1 Like
Any criminal: someone who breaks the law in such a way that is considered harmful to other people, or to the society at large.
The fact that a lot of people of colour receive an unjust treatment doesnât mean that criminals themselves do not exist. Whatâs your point here, that all criminals are just people of colour which are being unjustly attacked by the police? Because thatâs a bit of a wild argument there.
Right now as you make your rant about how criminals are just people of colour receiving unfair treatment(?) and cops are unnecessary(?) mass shootings have happened: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/04/us/highland-park-illinois-shooting-july-4-parade/index.html
STOP: STOP STOP STOP STOP.
Please. stop this nonsense
Iâm picturing the grey, expressionless personification of the 6 month overcast triumphantly holding up the severed head of a once shining, flower wreathed Summer.
1 Like
That is a very childishly naive way of looking at it. As I said, who determines who has been a criminal? The police, who have pretty often planted the evidence in innocent peopleâs homes, cars etc just to have an excuse to bully or worse - kill. Those are not criminals, even if the police say so.
Was not what I said.
Indeed. My point initially was that while gun control is very good in literally anywhere else, the time for establishing such in the US might have already passed as people might literally have to fight for their rights in the coming months in America. Who will the police defend then? We saw how in 2020 the police will shoot innocent people will rubber bullets etc (while continuously planting evidence/framing innocents as violent rooters when it was actually the policeâs doing); time and time again however we see how police have no problem protecting the people when it is the white conservatives protesting a social âissueâ.
Why do the police protect criminals who lie under oath, and not the people demanding equal rights?
Only one more day of Dead Blanchy camping!
I want to be DONE with this horse.
2 Likes
According to you it might be childish, but itâs a correct answer nevertheless.
The law*, the police enforces the former. 
Yeah, because they havenât been doing harmful acts, others have planted false evidence about them? Not sure how this point is meant to discredit my definition: they never broke the law in the first place.
I never said a qualifying trait for a criminal is to be identified as a criminal by the police?
Yes, the problem is that you arenât taking any position aside from berating the officer corps with appeal to emotions and in general portraying their order as âthe bad guysâ who do bad things - and yeah, okay, itâs not really going to get you anywhere from there.
Anectodal evidence, and letâs be honest here. If youâre looking at protests and the like, it just happens that the group above is less likely to create unrest on the streets. So itâs obvious the group that creates less problems is less targeted? (with this I donât want to deny that examples of unfair treatment occur and have occurred - they do)
You know that not all police officers are corrupt, no?
As for the people who demand equal rights, I guess the problem is how they demand them and what consequences would follow from their goals. If you have a group who preaches about universal rights, but at the same time makes statements about how they want to destroy cardinal institutions of their country, those who are meant to protect these institutions will likely be wary of them.
Itâs not about the situation, or who, but about who will do the crimes.
You may want to elaborate on this one. Are you advocating for violence in the name of universal rights, or are you making the case that some of the people with guns will protest in a violent way?
The police doesnât enforce the law when it inconveniences the rich and/or the powerful.
Yet they are convicted all the same. The law is not some mysterious all-present powerful being that determines whether innocent people are free from police oppression.
That you love being a contrarian every time the opportunity presents itself. Why are you like this, Zaphius!!
Excuse me? January 6th??? Or is that not an argument for you because it happened in the Capitol Building and not on the streets??? 
Also: see the difference in reactions to RvW overturning and immediate defense of the Supreme Court personal homes, vs how in the past abortion clinic workers personal homes were protested (and enforced by the law / first amendment, curiously not applicable this time to the SC justices huh!), and in worse cases - lynched. By all means, the law says we should be able to lynch the SC justices then?`
Also, âgroup that creates less problemsâ is white conservatives? Iâll let you think about your answer for a second again. 
But they sure do enable the corrupt ones. Do we really have to re-enact 2020 debates about police brutality and corruption?
What if itâs the police or the Supreme Court justices who do the crimes?
What Iâm saying is that when a country devolves into outright fascism, the police will not side with the people - as they never have - and will continue being openly fascist; and the likely outcome is either that the apathetic majorities let it happen and continue to suffer, or people will remove oppressive members from positions of power.
Iâm not saying either situation is great - as someone in the EU who depends on USAâs aid in repelling any of Russiaâs actions, it is a great worry for me that USA in either outcome will be severely weakened.
2 Likes
I say this with love nerath: any time wasted debating the sea lion who has somehow grown thumbs and created a WoW account is much better wasted by googling pictures of cool geckos
Like the actual geckos who have sucker feet
7 Likes
but mom, people are being wrong on the internet!!!
9 Likes
And heâll be loud and wrong and probably racist after this
Go to your room and think about how geckos shouldnât have claws itâs weird
1 Like
youâre just jealous over my superior ability to traverse rocky terrain in the middle east
1 Like
Or suckers googling feet.
Iâll just say that a corrupt, irredeemably broken police system will always fight for fascism long after even the military switches sides and the US system is uniquely bad due to its origins as slaving patrols and hired gangs, consistently protecting their own and poisoning global discourse with thin blue line propaganda.
3 Likes
Are you arguing that rich and powerful people can get around the laws more easily because they are more powerful⌠well, yes, duh?
I never said that it is?
Again, a single anectodal example.
One situation vs. many. And Iâm not sure how that is a good example in this case: the people directly involved in this are being convicted (ie. the shaman guy) and have been arrested. Yes, arguably more people should be on trial, ideally orange men (but these kind of people were clever to not get involved themselves directly), but it wasnât ignored.
In the meantime, during the riots, you had entire cities being in a state of anarchy and most of the people involved - including people going into the home of the major to threaten them - didnât face any charge.
Yes, the systems arenât perfect, and things should improve, and indeed I recognized there is an unfair bias against minorities (if you actually opened my first link, that research did acknowledge that), but if youâre playing this idea of an irremediably divided nation in which the police exists only to protect the interests of the powerful Iâm going to say no to that.
Itâs judges and policemen who do crimes, not âthe policeâ or the âcourtâ. If these people commit crimes, then they should be on trial?
Idk. Youâre the one trying to push in that direction.
âŚexcuse me? The U.S. have not devolved into fascism. There are far-right tendencies, and some come from people in positions of power, which, yes, is concerning. But so far nothing indicates that they will become a fascist country.
There are also people being openly marxist and claiming they want to sabotage the state. These type of attitudes seemingly get somewhat of a pass in the U.S.
Edit.
Iâm sure two years ago you would have been speaking at length about how the military is irremediably corrupt and fascist, and could never do the right thing 
Dare I say, against your prophetic knowledge of all corrupt things in the world, they did the right thing and proved this is a good signal + it means other institutions can improve too?
Me, finishing far cry 5 as itâs on game pass: man, this would be a lot more fun if this game was about something or had any themes
game pass: I gotchu fam, yakuza 0 is coming back
Me, prepping the download: thatâs my BOY
4 Likes