Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[From The Shadows]

However, there is someone whom I think should be in jail and it is Mark Wahlberg who actually did beat a Korean man to the point of being disabled. Now assault is actually a crime. Now if he did his time and changed his mind then forgiveness can be given but reports are that he really never realized how bad what he did was. And that's a problem. And unlike Neeson, I actually became a fan with Boogey Nights.

[Adam Allen]

Ahh... I disagree. My scales are not off. At all. We are talking about taking away someone's livelyhood over a lesson that was already learned. And wasting a potential ally. Who knows Liam Neeson may be able to speak to others about this. And I'm well aware about what happens to black people. Read some of my other posts. Don't make assumptions please, and focus on what was said. Just because you don't like my opinion does not mean you have me all figured out unless you are psychic, which I think too many people seem to think they are these days. Doing this now seems more like getting even than justice. Not too long ago a native American was beaten and one of the guys that did it was black. This was in Texas. Also, the white Buffalo, which was sacred to the native peoples was killed in an act of hate. My grandmother told me this and she was very disheartened but she chose not to become angry or feed into prejudice. And way to gloss over my own experiences because you don't agree with my opinion. And I'm probably less into celebrity than most. Hell, I'm not even a fan of his. And maybe I don't trust the politics in this. It seems so practiced and precise as in some sort of points given/taken as opposed to really giving a damn about the issues.

And what do you think about Danzel? What should be done about him? I'm curious.

Well, apologies, because I can see how I was not clear. I don't mean to say that your scales are off ... because, as you rightly point out, I do not know you, so I could not possibly make any such judgement ... rather, the theoretical person(s) you refer to, who will resist change "because they will feel the aggression of this whole thing and resent it highly..." yeah, I'm saying if that person can consider all the historical and modern injustices of the world, but then decide that other people disliking or being angry at Liam Neeson for what he shared means they are entitled to stew in resentment as much as they want ... that person is seriously doing it wrong, and reasonable people should feel no obligation to placate them.

Because, for one, I don't think we're really talking about Neeson's "livelihood". Yeah, he has been very successful as an actor. But, is he at any risk of starving, if his acting gigs just dry up from here on out? I mean, for me, "livelihood" means your life depends on this particular work. And even if he never got another role as an actor, I'd be very surprised if that meant he would starve. Hell, even if he has absolutely no savings and has hella debt to pay ... he's a personable, intelligent man. Maybe he wouldn't get to stay a rich celebrity, but I'm sure he would still have talents enough to scrape by, somehow.

And two, it's not as his comments exist in a vacuum. Which is to say, people already had justifiable anger over racial injustice, past and present, before he put his story out there. Maybe some people's zero tolerance for any kind of bigotry seems "practiced and precise" because they need to assert it all the time.

You are right, that he could be an ally. But, I'm sorry, if you someone needs to be coddled in order to be an ally, I have to think they would never be much of one, in the first place. Oppressed people have a right to be angry, and if potential allies can be scared off just because that anger is expressed ... well, again, I have to doubt they ever could be an ally of any value.

"I will be on your side in confronting this horrible injustice ... you know, so long as I never need to feel personally uncomfortable?" Yeah, that really makes for pretty poor ally.

But, again, I really am not trying to make any assumptions about you. I just disagree with the notion that people being angry at Liam Neeson should be enough to make other people decide that striving for a more equitable world is not worth it.

And, afraid I really don't know about whatever the deal is, with Denzel Washington. Going by just what you've said? Yeah, if some people don't want to forgive him for homophobia in his youth? Afraid I have to say that is perfectly fair. Because, forgiveness cannot be something that is just automatically owed. I can hope that I am forgiven, without any effort on my part. But, I also can't get mad, if some people think their forgiveness should more rightfully be earned.

I mean, I could be mad about that ... I just don't think it would be reasonable, you know?

[From The Shadows]

Well, apologies, because I can see how I was not clear. I don't mean to say that your scales are off ... because, as you rightly point out, I do not know you, so I could not possibly make any such judgement ... rather, the theoretical person(s) you refer to, who will resist change "because they will feel the aggression of this whole thing and resent it highly..." yeah, I'm saying if that person can consider all the historical and modern injustices of the world, but then decide that other people disliking or being angry at Liam Neeson for what he shared means they are entitled to stew in resentment as much as they want ... that person is seriously doing it wrong, and reasonable people should feel no obligation to placate them.

Because, for one, I don't think we're really talking about Neeson's "livelihood". Yeah, he has been very successful as an actor. But, is he at any risk of starving, if his acting gigs just dry up from here on out? I mean, for me, "livelihood" means your life depends on this particular work. And even if he never got another role as an actor, I'd be very surprised if that meant he would starve. Hell, even if he has absolutely no savings and has hella debt to pay ... he's a personable, intelligent man. Maybe he wouldn't get to stay a rich celebrity, but I'm sure he would still have talents enough to scrape by, somehow.

And two, it's not as his comments exist in a vacuum. Which is to say, people already had justifiable anger over racial injustice, past and present, before he put his story out there. Maybe some people's zero tolerance for any kind of bigotry seems "practiced and precise" because they need to assert it all the time.

You are right, that he could be an ally. But, I'm sorry, if you someone needs to be coddled in order to be an ally, I have to think they would never be much of one, in the first place. Oppressed people have a right to be angry, and if potential allies can be scared off just because that anger is expressed ... well, again, I have to doubt they ever could be an ally of any value.

"I will be on your side in confronting this horrible injustice ... you know, so long as I never need to feel personally uncomfortable?" Yeah, that really makes for pretty poor ally.

But, again, I really am not trying to make any assumptions about you. I just disagree with the notion that people being angry at Liam Neeson should be enough to make other people decide that striving for a more equitable world is not worth it.

And, afraid I really don't know about whatever the deal is, with Denzel Washington. Going by just what you've said? Yeah, if some people don't want to forgive him for homophobia in his youth? Afraid I have to say that is perfectly fair. Because, forgiveness cannot be something that is just automatically owed. I can hope that I am forgiven, without any effort on my part. But, I also can't get mad, if some people think their forgiveness should more rightfully be earned.

I mean, I could be mad about that ... I just don't think it would be reasonable, you know?

Sorry, I haven't slept well and tensions were high from something else. And I definitely think people still have a right to be wary and even sour toward him. I myself am disappointed but I think he should be given another chance. True Liam could probably retire right now actually. I just think that this quick to axe him from existence is not the right way to go. Doesn't mean I think people should be completely ok with him. Well, if Liam was actually angry at people for being hurt by this then he definitely would not have learned his lesson. Now I actually heard this about Neeson a few years ago already and also heard he was actually appalled about this part of himself and he changed his views. Wahlberg on the other hand I heard the opposite. He really didn't care until he thought he could get in trouble with the public after he received fame. Though, recent reports seemed to have changed on Neeson. So I really don't know what to believe.

[zinderel]

Opinions: Stanley Kubrick is enormously overrated, and was a terrible person. 2001 was bloated and nonsense-shite without powerful chemical assistance. The Shining is terrible, and completely missed some of the best parts of - and most of the point of - the book. Also, the abuse that Kubrick put Shelly Duvall through should have ended his career. Eyes Wide Shut is...well, it's Eyes Wide Shut...do I need to go on...?

[Ragged Maw]

Also, the abuse that Kubrick put Shelly Duvall through should have ended his career.

It was director-assisted method acting. Though if it (or that particular extreme of such) wasn’t part of her contract, then that’s a glaring problem. Still, even if Kubrick was legally in the clear, Shelly’s remarkable rapid hair loss paints a grim picture.

[From The Shadows]

It was director-assisted method acting. Though if it (or that particular extreme of such) wasn’t part of her contract, then that’s a glaring problem. Still, even if Kubrick was legally in the clear, Shelly’s remarkable rapid hair loss paints a grim picture.

Opinions: Stanley Kubrick is enormously overrated, and was a terrible person. 2001 was bloated and nonsense-shite without powerful chemical assistance. The Shining is terrible, and completely missed some of the best parts of - and most of the point of - the book. Also, the abuse that Kubrick put Shelly Duvall through should have ended his career. Eyes Wide Shut is...well, it's Eyes Wide Shut...do I need to go on...?

Malcom McDowell supposedly also suffered abuse from him including making him stand naked in the freezing cold. But he still seemed to worship the guy and not out of fear but out of genuine admiration. Maybe as a man he thought he passed some right of passage? Dudes.

[Kirby101]

Opinions: Stanley Kubrick is enormously overrated, and was a terrible person. 2001 was bloated and nonsense-shite without powerful chemical assistance. The Shining is terrible, and completely missed some of the best parts of - and most of the point of - the book. Also, the abuse that Kubrick put Shelly Duvall through should have ended his career. Eyes Wide Shut is...well, it's Eyes Wide Shut...do I need to go on...?

Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest directors who ever lived and 2001 can be considered the best film ever made.

[Kirby101]

The US Constitution can protect the people's freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion?

Actually it can. It forbids the State from sponsoring any religion or being favorable to any one over another. The State must be neutral to religion. It also forbids any religious test. Of course the GOP would love to change this.

[Kirby101]

Ten Commanments on Government grounds have been ruled unconstitutional. There can be no religious test, it isn't optional. And the Government cannot endorse any religion.

The White House celebrations is a different matter. It is constitutionally vague and never been challenged.

[dancj]

However, there is someone whom I think should be in jail and it is Mark Wahlberg who actually did beat a Korean man to the point of being disabled. Now assault is actually a crime. Now if he did his time and changed his mind then forgiveness can be given but reports are that he really never realized how bad what he did was. And that's a problem. And unlike Neeson, I actually became a fan with Boogey Nights.

From what I can see with a quick google, he did serve time for it - albeit only 45 days. And the man's eye was damaged from his time in the war, not Wahlberg's attack.

[dancj]

Opinions: Stanley Kubrick is enormously overrated, and was a terrible person. 2001 was bloated and nonsense-shite without powerful chemical assistance.

Most of 2001 is good. It's only the ending that is nonsense-shite.

[Kirby101]

If the religious tests are forbidden, then why has almost every president of the United States sworn their oath on a bible?

Christmas Day is a federal holiday so the federal workers get a holiday on Christmas.

You don't understand what a "religious test" is. The bible is not required for any oath, it is window dressing.

Christmas is a holiday for practical reasons. Not because the US Government acknowledges the birth of Jesus. There are many laws that are questionable under th 1st Amendment, including Sunday Blue Laws. They are being tested. The Government can accommodate religion without endorsing it. And it cannot favor one religion over another.

[Kirby101]

Most of 2001 is good. It's only the ending that is nonsense-shite.

From when Bowman enters the star gate to the star child it is nothing but mind blowing, jaw dropping amazing.

[CaptCleghorn]

From when Bowman enters the star gate to the star child it is nothing but mind blowing, jaw dropping amazing.

Details like the apes who experienced the monlith then walking upright and the diversity of the people Floyd speaks with on the moon are subtle signs things have changed. I stand by an assessment of 2001 as brilliant.

[Kirby101]

Details like the apes who experienced the monlith then walking upright and the diversity of the people Floyd speaks with on the moon are subtle signs things have changed. I stand by an assessment of 2001 as brilliant.

I was by no means saying that up to that point 2001 is anything less than phenomenal. HAL's story alone is astonishing.