I was thinking the commodore.

Agree 100%. It’s naked hypocrisy.

So is Matthew Lillard. The whole thing feels oddly personal. Like if he had said “I didn’t like Dano in There Will Be Blood” you could understand that’s just a professional opinion. Maybe he thought someone else could have done better. But making it insulting undercuts his credibility as an impartial critic.

Everything

I don’t know.

It was in a jam

Push it down a hill.

I’m so fucking tired of the cynical voice in my head being right all the time. I read this headline and immediately thought of Arthur Dent face down in the mud in front of a bulldozer.

On the one hand, yeah maybe he was operating as a propaganda agent for Iran. But they deleted his whole account, his email, his drive contents, and every video he uploaded. His life’s work nuked from orbit.

You can’t swing a dead cat on YouTube without hitting 1200 different propaganda agents working for various political wings. When was the last time Google obliterated a joirnalist from Newsmax or Xinhua?

Criticism is fine, when you’re talking about someone’s work and how to improve it. Calling someone “weak” and “the worst actor in the SAG” is deeply personal and insulting.

Revealing a personal bias in a professional setting belies unprofessional attitudes and prejudices. Tarantino isn’t a critic, he’s a filmmaker and an influential voice in the industry. Taking pot shots at a couple of B-list character actors is hurtful on a personal level, and wantonly destructive on a professional level. The power dynamic between producers and actors is massively unbalanced. It would be like the CEO where you work talking shit on LinkedIn about project managers at a rival company. If he’s saying this publicly, what is he saying behind the scenes? Is he trashing actors to casting directors to influence their careers?

He has every right to say “I don’t want these people in my movies.” It would also be professional to say “I did not like this specific performance for these specific reasons.” It’s extremely unprofessional to say “I hate these people because of who they are and anyone working with them is on my shit-list.”

He also took some totally unnecessary shots at Paul Dano, saying he was the worst actor in the SAG. That’s a bizarrely personal attack out of nowhere on a guy you never worked with.

Crazy how much they’re talking about him like he was the last conservative statesman, like he wasn’t a corrupt partisan oligarch willing to murder for his own personal profit. Like, he didn’t become a better person, that’s just how bad the Trump era has gotten.

That’s not an exaggeration in any way. New York and Chicago. There are other cities with some public transit, but anywhere with a) jobs, b) decent schools, and c) reliable public transit will also be prohibitively expensive.

Except it’s not merely a cult, it is the entire history of the development of our nation. Our infrastructure is built on the idea that space is plentiful, and everyone has their own car. The very concept of suburban America is predicated on at least one car in every home. Communities were built without walking access or public transit. Commerce was congealed into vast campuses consisting entirely of parking lots and three-story office buildings. School districts consolidated into massive centralized buildings where thousands of students arrive via hundreds of big yellow busses, some traveling for hours each way.

Even if you wanted to break free from the “cult,” there’s like two cities in the entire USA where you could live, work, and raise a family in a decent school district without a car, and they would be some of the highest cost of living areas in the entire world.

My favorite story from the cast is when Jason Alexander was talking with Larry David about a particularly unlikely scenario, saying he was having trouble relating as a character to something that would never happen to anyone. David said “What are you talking about? This happened to me.” It was then that Alexander realized that George is Larry, and he stopped doing George as Woody Allen.

Quite literally, at times.

George is whimsical?

That was basically the premise of Seinfeld.

Again, I didn’t accuse you of shit. I said pedophile enablers are bad people, and you volunteered to be offended. That’s on you if you felt accused of being shitty. If that’s what you’re about, then I really don’t care what you think of what I said.

I didn’t accuse you of anything. I said people who defend pedophiles are bad people. You jumped in to be like “No, we’re not!” If what I said offended you because I said I don’t like pedophile enablers (or pedophiles), then that’s you telling on yourself.

Ok, you caught me. I’m prejudiced against pedophiles and pedophile enablers, and I’m not sorry. If that offends you, I assume you’re a member of one of those two groups, and I don’t want to continue talking with you. I suppose that’s a sort of bigotry, but I’m not really worried what you think or what offends pedophiles and pedophile enablers.

I’m not suggesting you’re doing it specifically. I’m saying generally if you feel the need to make that distinction in your normal day to day life, you’re almost certainly a sexual predator.

Yeah, if you’re quoting the DSM V to defend yourself as technically not a pedophile, then yes you’ve crossed the rubicon of decency.