Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    GeekAesthete

    + friends - friends
    3,546 link karma
    154,659 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Finding Parents' MAGA Hats Will One Day Be Equivalent of Discovering Their 'Ku Klux Klan Hood or Robe,' GeekAesthete 224 points ago in TrueReddit

    It's possible, but I suspect MAGA hats will be more equivalent to confederate flags -- the majority of the country will disavow them, and associate them with racism, but a certain minority of rural, uneducated, underprivileged white Americans who feel that they've been dealt a bad hand, and point the blame at black and brown people, will proudly display them as a form of redneck rebellion while insisting that it's not about race, but rather some other abstract idea.

    [–] ‘The Punisher’ & ‘Jessica Jones’ Canceled By Netflix; Latter’s 3rd Season Still To Air GeekAesthete 26 points ago in television

    Just because you compete in some spaces doesn't mean you can't work together in others

    But this isn't "other spaces"; streaming is literally the space in which Disney and Netflix are directly competing.

    [–] Crackdown 3 is a greasy cheeseburger. GeekAesthete 6 points ago in Games

    It's worth remembering who was writing early game reviews, and who the target demographic was, when this standard became the norm: students. A lot of early game reviewers (and many still to this day) were recent college grads looking for work, and they often thought of review scores like school grades, where a 7/10 (or 70%) is a C-. And since the target demo was often high school and college students, they, too, thought of scores that way.

    If you look at gaming review scores like grade percentages, the scores make complete sense: a 9/10 is an A-, an 8.5/10 is a respectable B, a 7.5/10 is a completely average C, and anything below a 6/10 is failing.

    The traditional judge's scores (where the full range is used, and 5/10 is average) is commonly associated with things like Olympic events, ice skating or gymnastics routines, things like that -- things that weren't really in the lives of the young people who normalized these gaming review scores. So, for better or worse, that's what we're stuck with.

    [–] Daniel Radcliffe Somehow Became Hollywood’s Weirdest Actor—and Its Most Normal Celebrity GeekAesthete 2009 points ago in television

    Kinda similar to Hugh Jackman. He was a musical theater nerd, then he became Wolverine, a role that set him up for life, and used his X-Men fame as a stepping stone to becoming the preeminent musical performer in Hollywood. And now he's going on tour signing showtunes just because he can.

    (As an aside, we all need to thank John Woo for going over-schedule on Mission: Impossible 2, keeping Dougray Scott from being Wolverine, and giving us the magnificence of Hugh Jackman.)

    [–] In the last 40 years in the NFL, 26 teams had a year-over-year increase of 7+ wins. These teams averaged a 3.5 win decrease the next season. Only 4 teams had the same or better record the year after the jump. [OC] GeekAesthete 3 points ago in dataisbeautiful

    Also worth remembering that 7 wins is almost half of a season, and very few teams win 14 or more games in a season. That means there's already a self-selecting bias, in that in order to improve by seven wins, you have to have a pretty bad record to begin with.

    Most of the consistently good teams in the league are well-managed enough that they rarely drop down to 3 or 4 wins for the season. If you're down there in the first place, there's a good chance that there are larger organizational issues that can bring you right back down after a good season.

    [–] ... while I stoke up the fire. GeekAesthete 61 points ago in holdmybeer

    Stop, drop, and roll.

    Look left, look right, look left again.

    Stranger danger.

    Only I can prevent forest fires.

    Ummmm...in case of emergency, call 867-5309?

    [–] What's going on with Ellen Page and Chris Pratt being anti-LGBTQ? GeekAesthete 361 points ago in OutOfTheLoop

    Not everyone listens to celebrity interviews. For a lot of us, they're just a short step below reality television.

    "Hello comedian, thanks for coming on the show. Hey, I heard you just flew into town, how was your flight?"

    "Thanks, Jimmy. It was a terrible flight! And now here's a completely unprepared routine about airline travel."

    "Good stuff. Hey, it's tax season. Have you done your taxes yet?"

    "Funny you should ask that, Jimmy. I have several completely unscripted jokes about taxes that I will now deliver."

    "Okay, thanks for stopping by. This has been a very organic and natural conversation."

    [–] No more congressional talks scheduled to avert shutdown: source GeekAesthete 15 points ago in politics

    I do. Elections turn on swing voters, and the dip in the popularity of both Trump and Republicans over the past 2 months has had a lot to do with everyday Americans -- the kind of people who don't spend much time watching the news, but who still vote -- believing that Trump is responsible for the government shutdown.

    You say it doesn't matter what they say? Republicans helped convince millions of Americans that Hillary Clinton was more corrupt than Donald Trump, and he's in the fucking White House now. Sarah Palin threw out the phrase "death panels" and suddenly end-of-life doctor consultations were cut from the ACA. A Republican PAC smears John Kerry's war record and he narrowly loses the 2004 election. Don't tell me that what they say doesn't matter. I'm not going to put my head under a rock and pretend that what they say has no impact on elections.

    And if what they say doesn't matter, then why would you care whether Trump gives a SOTU address or not? The only reason for this to be an issue is if what he says there does matter.

    [–] No more congressional talks scheduled to avert shutdown: source GeekAesthete 31 points ago in politics

    While I would have enjoyed her refusing the SOTU, I think the optics of it were good for her. She extended a visible olive branch and let Trump have his speech, which undermines Republican attempts to say the Democrats are being unreasonable or uncooperative.

    Even though I agree with the logic of refusing it until the government is permanently reopened, if she wants to keep the pressure of blame on Trump and Republicans, continuing to refuse the SOTU could have become a distraction, and likely used a sign that “Democrats are refusing to cooperate with us”. I think she made a risk/reward assessment and decided to just move on from the SOTU story.

    [–] ELI5: Why do all the drugs that feel the best hurt us the most, all the best tasting food has the least nutritional value, and activities that hurt like exercise benefit us the most? GeekAesthete 5 points ago in explainlikeimfive

    You're likely using a lot of selection bias here.

    In terms of food, there are two primary reasons for a food to be popular: it tastes good, or it's healthy for you. So the many, many, many foods that are neither just don't get produced in large quantities. There are, in fact, plenty of edible products that are unhealthy and don't taste good, there's just no reason for anyone to produce them. You're just fixating on the things you like but aren't good for you (you can eat sawdust, but it tastes like crap and it's not healthy; apples, carrots, chicken, and tuna fish are all tastier and healthier).

    But you also need consider that whether certain foods are unhealthy depends on how much you expend calories. Humans evolved to crave sugars because we need them: calories are literally fuel for our bodies. And when humans expended a lot of energy, but didn't always have an endless food supply, they needed those sugars when they could get them, so there was an evolutionary benefit to crave high-calorie food. But even today, for active humans, consuming calories is beneficial -- marathon runners, for instance, will consume high-calorie foods that a lazy couch potatoe shouldn't eat.

    As for activities: you know what activity is tremendously healthy for you? Sleep. Sleep is good for your body, good for your mind, good for your all-around wel-being. And mpost people enjoy it. By focusing on exercise, you're focusing on healthy activities that you personally don't like to do, and ignoring the activities that are also good for you that you don't mind.

    [–] This is not photoshopped GeekAesthete 16 points ago in illusionporn

    These are amazing, and then that first star is insanely annoying because the top point is just a little bit off.

    [–] Liam Neeson defended by Michelle Rodriguez: 'Racists don’t make out with the race that they hate' GeekAesthete 23 points ago in nottheonion

    It's not a big deal. I've seen easily 10 times as many people defending him as I have criticizing him.

    It's just the megaphone effect of the internet -- a loud minority got angry, and suddenly everyone thought this was a big deal. People angry at Liam Neeson are kinda like Flat Earthers: sure, they exist, but reddit really overestimates how many of them there really are.

    [–] Trump “Normalized” GeekAesthete 3 points ago in pics

    The problem with that image is that it uses someone with a tight scalp. With Trump's diet of fast food and lack of exercise, he's not gonna have such a smooth dome.

    [–] Trump says one of America's greatest accomplishments is the 'abolition of civil rights' at National Prayer Breakfast GeekAesthete 229 points ago in politics

    Honestly, that was my first thought. I see this kind of thing in student papers all the time, where they try to use a big word that they’ve heard, and completely butcher it, but you can tell that it’s a word they’ve heard other people use, but they misunderstood in context.

    [–] In the film 'Hail, Caesar!' (2016), there is one scene in which a Protestant, a Catholic and an Orthodox priest and a Jewish rabbi are consulted about the titular film-within-a-film's depiction of Jesus. How far did film studios in the 50s actually try to avoid offending religious sensibilities? GeekAesthete 3 points ago in AskHistorians

    Others could as well—you’re right, no one man could do all that work himself. However, Breen was surprisingly hands-on, and it’s amazing how many of the letters between the PCA and producers were from Breen himself. Granted, they could have been written by an assistant, but the writing style and turns of phrase are very consistent in the correspondence I’ve read (and they’re not all signed by Breen; some correspondence did indeed come from others).

    It’s likely that he had others reading scripts and watching films, and they would notify him of problem areas so that he could focus his attention where it was needed, but also keep in mind that in many cases, they knew early on which films needed the most attention. When The Postman Always Rings Twice is made,they know it’s going to be a problem from the start. When a Shirley Temple film gets made, not so much.

    [–] In the film 'Hail, Caesar!' (2016), there is one scene in which a Protestant, a Catholic and an Orthodox priest and a Jewish rabbi are consulted about the titular film-within-a-film's depiction of Jesus. How far did film studios in the 50s actually try to avoid offending religious sensibilities? GeekAesthete 15 points ago in AskHistorians

    There were a few -- Greta Garbo's Queen Christina and Anna Karenina both got condemned (Garbo was very scandalous at the time -- in Queen Christina, she dresses as a man and kisses a woman!), and so did Of Human Bondage, the movie that launched Bette Davis's stardom.

    As far as injudicious enforcement: I assume you mean of the Production Code? (the "condemned" rating was from the Catholic Legion of Decency) There were contentious back-and-forths with the PCA regarding many films, where edits had to be made. But despite the Code's guidelines, enforcement was often subjective, so it's hard to say.

    There were often discrepancies across films; for instance, black-and-white films seemed to come under stricter scrutiny simply because they felt "grittier", so if you compare the a sex comedy like Pillow Talk (in bright Technicolor, with Doris Day and Rock Hudson, and with few problems despite the sexual nature of the film) with a movie like The Apartment (black and white, darker, without the wholesomeness of Doris Day, and with more PCA trouble), it seems like standards weren't always equal, but were at least partly dictating by ambiguous perceptions of the film.

    Some filmmakers have claimed that they would actually include additional scenes that they intended to cut: they'd add scenes or dialogue that was more risque, and when the PCA focused on those parts, they'd "begrudgingly" cut them and get a seal of approval, simply because the film seemed tamed compared with the original version the PCA saw.

    But the studios certainly did approach controversial topics, especially in the era of film noir. A lot of the most controversial material came from adaptation of plays and novels that dealt with taboo topics, but got made because the source material was a pre-sold property. The Postman Always Rings Twice was so controversial that the PCA actually pre-emptively declared that it could never be made suitable, and discouraged several studios from adapting it until finally, after the success of Double Indemnity (a similar novel from the same author) MGM went through with it, and had much trouble with the PCA. Gone with the Wind, A Streetcar Named Desire, The Moon is Blue -- all of these had contentious battles with the PCA, and all were adapted from already-popular books and plays.

    [–] In the film 'Hail, Caesar!' (2016), there is one scene in which a Protestant, a Catholic and an Orthodox priest and a Jewish rabbi are consulted about the titular film-within-a-film's depiction of Jesus. How far did film studios in the 50s actually try to avoid offending religious sensibilities? GeekAesthete 23 points ago * (lasted edited 18 days ago) in AskHistorians

    In the 1930s, this was actually used to discourage films from making outright critiques of Nazi Germany -- for fear of offending the Germans. And this created some tension between filmmakers who wished to criticize Nazi Germany and the studio heads that wished to maintain a cordial relationship with Germany, as well as their distribution offices in Germany (which was made all the more surreal when you consider that most of the studios were being run by Jewish studio heads). The first film to openly call out Nazi Germany by name wasn't until 1939, with Confessions of a Nazi Spy, and even that only got allowed because it was a fictionalized version of a real-life incident that had gone to trial the year before, and the film stuck closely to many details of that case (Warner Bros.had a reputation for making social problem films, and Jack Warner was one of the only studios heads that wanted to openly criticize the Nazis, so it was completely unsurprising that Warners would be the studio to first break that taboo).

    After we entered the war, when Hollywood got fully onboard with the American propaganda effort (the Why we Fight documentary series, the many patriotic war films, etc.), those rules were relaxed when dealing with the Axis powers. Once the American public was fully opposed to the Axis, it was good business to make German and Japanese villains, and no one cared about offending those nations once they were wartime enemies (and no longer a potential market).

    Race was more complicated, as it revolved around very subjective ideas of what was acceptable, and in practice, race was the least attended-to of those three categories. Characters like Charlie Chan or Stepin Fetchit or the typical Native American villain of westerns would be considered offensive today, but they were perfectly acceptable to the censors at the PCA, so the studios didn't have many problems. I'm sure there were at least a few cases of having to make changes for racial reasons, but they were uncommon enough that I can't think of any off the top of my head.