There’s lots of bad pacing and horrible acting in movies today though. You can obviously watch or not watch whatever, but I think you’re limiting yourself unnecessarily if you put too much weight on the year of release.

None of that makes any sense. An old book and a new book aren’t different in the way a rotary phone and a smartphone are. They are functionally the same object: text on paper.

You could have, for example, a story about someone stranded on an island, and the era it was written in would make almost no difference at all because technology doesn’t have any bearing on the story, and we haven’t changed as a species. The culture of the author would influence things, but that’s true even of media today since we don’t all share the same culture.

Old media can also be very illuminating when it does affect the story because it can teach you something about the era in which it was made. You might think to yourself, “Gosh, people used to be able to feed and house their families on a single paycheck? Why can’t we do that today?”

And yeah, having stuff in black and white is less visually interesting, but I’m not going to rule out something I might find enjoyable just because of that. I watched quite a few old sitcoms in my childhood that I enjoyed just as much as the modern cartoons, and I still enjoy some of those cartoons today alongside modern TV.

Do you think the Home Alone sequels are better than the original?

How is it dystopian?

I’ve never been interested in RDR2 because I’m not into the western aesthetic, but I am absolutely into the aesthetic of being a time traveler or alien or wizard using my powers to help farmers and explode bad guys in an otherwise western setting. If I had any money, I would pay someone to make this.

Moby Dick is good in a way where I don’t care about any of the characters or the story, but I could read Melville describe water or argue that dolphins are fish for the rest of my life, just because of how beautifully he does it.

I don’t understand that at all. What about being old makes something boring by default?

Once codified into law, would the recent executive order not invalidate the legal identification of everyone who doesn’t have their sex assigned at birth listed?

A [State] department webpage that described how people could change their gender marker was taken offline, and Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer, said it’s unlikely that any new application to change the gender marker on a passport will be approved.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-transgender-passports-prisons-eggs-sperm-da1d1d280658a8c85c57cfec2f30cefb

I don’t think media coverage is a very reliable gauge of truth in a society where the media is controlled by oligarchs. On top of everything that that’s been going on, a journalist just got fired for calling Elon Musk a Nazi.

It’s also pretty common for marginalized people to relate their problems secondhand because victims don’t always want the public eye on them. Yes, victims should go to the authorities, but it’s often easier said than done even when the authorities aren’t well-known for dismissing victims and/or furthering their abuse.

e: To clarify, I don’t think it’s true that what the official said is policy; I think that person is probably lying. What I mean is that the incident itself is very plausible, and I have a policy of believing victims if there isn’t a good reason not to, especially where it may protect others.

I can’t actually imagine what proof of this situation would look like.

I’ve never been good at reading stuff like this, so it’s more than plausible I’m just missing it, but I can’t find where the resolution would give anyone the legal power or moral authority to invade another state.

“I understand your mental health problems and your efforts to be your best self. The pros of spending time with you outweigh the cons; you have not lost my affection.”

vs

“This topic brings my discomfort with you to the fore. Join me in a mutual lie so that we can continue our suffering and never make progress.”