I do, but only if it's built up properly. This is also true of musical numbers and fight scenes. If built up properly, they can be incredibly cathartic and the best parts of the film, but if not, they grind the plot to a halt.

The reason so many people hate these kinds of scenes is that most screenwriters are really bad at creating tension. The purpose of these scenes is to release emotional tension, so without building this, they feel pointless and jarring. The best parody of this is in Men in Tights when Robin bursts into a love song out of nowhere and it scares the hell out of Marian.

I'm trying to provide examples of love scenes I actually like in films, and to be honest, I'm coming up blank. I think it may just be a lot more difficult to generate romantic tension in the average timespan of a film. It's easier in television, where you get more time to tell the story. I think my favorite intimate scene in tv is in Game of Thrones season 3 when John and Ygritte are in the cave.

He's not saying they're right wing governments, just that they're highly authoritarian, which is something that leftists, on average, tend to be against, so if someone claims to be "left" but supports Russia, they likely have a poor understanding of one of those things.

I am so tired of this sentiment. You're not wrong about the corporate stuff, but blaming people for wanting it to get better serves no purpose. For all its flaws, Reddit had something that no other site, not even this one, has been able to remotely replicate. I didn't use the site for news, politics, memes, or mindless scrolling. I used it because it was literally the only place to discuss niche topics and interests.

Whether we like it or not, it's the only place where a lot of these niche communities exist. Users that were here since Digg will find a new home, but the one who can barely use a Macbook may not. And I'm all for helping as many of those communities migrate, but the truth is that for many communities, especially the ones less technically inclined, the death of Reddit means the death of that community, and that's really fucking sad.

Futurama: Bender's Big Score may not be the deepest film, but it's never failed to make me smile. "I can wire anything to anything! I'm the professor!"

Not in a way that's accessible to casual audiences. You can watch literally any show, and chances are there's a sub where you can go talk about it. That was not the case 10 years ago. Unless your show had a cult following, the only people to talk about it with were people you knew. I hope that someday we can turn this site into the same kind of thing, but we aint there yet.

In other words, you have the right to be an asshole, but if you do it too much, others can invoke their right be assholes right back to you.

I mean Jim Jones was pretty damn effective at convincing a large group of people to commit mass suicide. If he'd been ineffective, he'd have been one of the thousands of failed cult leaders you and I have never heard of. Similarly, if Hitler had been ineffective, it wouldn't have takes the combined forces of half the world to fight him.

At least that scene is funny and develops the plot. I think they're talking more about stuff like all those 90s movies that have the plot grind to a halt so two characters can punch each other for ten minutes.

This is the real answer. It's easy to forget that for most people who are famous for their unusual political views, most of their overall content has nothing to do with that. There's something about politics that can turn even the most open-minded of individuals into raging idealogues.

It's hilarious to me that Joe Rogan is now known for his like 3 conservative views when I mostly remember him as the guy who hosted Fear Factor, did every drug known to man, interviewed scientists in every field out there, and did that really popular interview with Bernie Sanders a couple years ago.

The point is that every hobby and niche interest has someone who gets way too hung up on one particular issue and devotes way too much time to talking about it, dragging the whole community down with them.

You're coming dangerously close to re-inventing the kilt

I mean I agree with this part. That's why I'm commenting on this site and not the other one, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend the other one doesn't exist and that we don't care what's going on there. I agree that everyone should move here, but nevertheless, most of them aren't, and I cannot control that. The fact is that most people are not deep enough into the internet to make a pros and cons list of social media sites. They just use what other people use, or what pops up first on Google. We are neither of those things, and until we are, I have a vested interest in what happens at the other place.

For me, it just came down to how unintuitive and slow Windows's desktop environment is. Setting up the most basic customizations requires going through like 15 sub-menus or dealing with the registry. Also, GNOME and KDE are just so much prettier than Windows's desktop environment.

Personally, I feel like most of the problems in the modern world come down to issues of scaling. We evolved our brains to coordinate in small bands of people, but we try use those same brains to coordinate groups of hundreds of millions.

The larger an organization (corporation, government, npo, etc.) gets, the worse they get at coordinating around a central goal or set of values, and the more likely they are to evolutionarily optimize around something entirely divorced from the values of any individual member.

A company of 100 employees is entirely capable of creating a high-quality product, compensating their workers well, and avoiding anti-consumer practices. This doesn't mean they'll always do this, but it's possible. Meanwhile, a multinational corporation of millions of people, even if run by the most ethical CEO on earth, will always gravitate toward maximizing profit at the expense of everything else. Even libertarians recognize this as a fundamental flaw in unchecked Capitalism.

Similarly, a government of a few thousand people can create a good constitution for an orderly society, but in a massive government of a country of 300 million people, trying to make any sort of effective, positive political change is borderline-impossible because everyone has different goals that gridlock each other. Even proponents of large government recognize this.

It's tempting to believe in some sort of easy action that could fix this, but truth be told, I think any simple solution would be horrifying, and I think any good solution is going to take an incredible amount of thought and be more complex than the sort of thing you'd see every day on the internet.

I feel like it's more about distribution of responsibility. If you have a king, he's either a good king and runs things well, or a bad king and runs things poorly. A King's success is generally measured by the quality of his kingdom, which is at least somewhat tied to the wellbeing of subjects.

In a corporation, even if you have a comparitively "good" CEO, he's still answerable to the shareholders, and thus obligated to raise the stock value by any means necessary, a factor which is not necessarily dependent on the wellbeing of his employees.

There ya go! I knew there had to be a couple out there!

I mean we don't have a /c/ for that yet, so might as well be here.

There ya go! I knew there had to be a couple out there!

And the death by starvation rate?

Based entirely on your comment, I would say the issue isn't the concept of ideology, but the fact that the ideologies that matter the most and the ones that spread the fastest aren't the same. After all, the idea that no one should starve is itself an idealogy.

So I agree with 90% of this, and I don't understand why you're getting downvoted. That being said, the one thing I can't get behind is worse punishments for violent crime. I'm not saying violent crime is good, but basically all of the evidence suggest that worse punishments do nothing to curtail it, and in fact make it more likely. The longer someone spends in prison, the less likely they are to reintegrate into society. If the goal is to reduce violent crime, rehabilitation is far more effective than deterrence.

I don't disagree with this, but it sounds like you're talking less about violent crime in general and more about sexual battery and premeditated assault, which makes up a relatively small proportion of violent crime.

Most violent crime is just regular conflict that escalates into throwing punches, and throwing these people in prison is the quickest way to push them away from lawfulness and down the path of crime. Prison is just networking for criminals.

While I don't care for the song, NPR calling media enjoyed by the lower classes "racist" isn't exactly a new thing, and it rings less true every time they do it. The song, at its core, is a generic "We're tougher than you" machismo piece which is a perfectly normal thing that can be found in most genres. Someone from Tennessee writes a song about how country people are tougher, then someone from Compton writes a song about how city people are tougher. It's just dick waving and it's normal thing everyone does, whether they realize it or not. NPR trying to turn it into a race thing isn't convincing anyone to change their musical taste, it's just fanning the flames of a conflict that pits working-class country people against working-class city people, in which everyone loses except the ones taking advantage for profit