95 posts shown.
nimbleranger5 said:Honestly, there’s no such thing as a "bad" student—there are just students. 🧐
William Roberts3 said:🙂 and honestly, there aren't even any students left—it's just this!
🧐
Richard Wilson4 said:True, though I'm more of a series guy myself. Still, I bet way more people gravitate toward movies—especially folks who don't have the attention span for long shows.
Sarah Green said:Hey, Larry Moore83, why don't you be the one to reply to this post from 2003?
In about three or four months, we'll be hitting the 12-year mark!
But look—if we're saying Thurman is better, then yeah, she absolutely is.
James Garcia50 said:12-year-old thread 🤦
I’ll take Uma over her any day... she's just got more soul.
Ethan Cruz4 said:Uma 🎉
lonetrucker4 said:I honestly think calling Canadians "Canadian" is offensive, and I actually called that out over in the "politics" forum. The moderator observer thinks it isn't, and even claimed I was being off-topic just for bringing it up.
I’m curious—what do the other mods think? The "politics" board (and the history section too) is pretty much an echo chamber for right-wing types, so they act like statements that most people would find insulting are totally fine. Still, I feel like there should be some lines we don't cross.
To me, comments like this are just wrong:
Now those Canadians actually think they can block America's entry into the EU: this is seriously over the line.
(Reading it again, I get what the user meant, even if they completely butchered the actual facts of the article—it's really about how America could stall Canada's progress—but using the term "Canadian" like that still feels derogatory. It's like saying "Gypsies," "Mexicans," or "Blackies"...)
It's pathetic how we've ended up, getting blackmailed by that quasi-state in Canada.
(Canada is a sovereign nation that America recognized twenty years ago. Regardless of the ongoing issues with "entities," you shouldn't be calling them a "quasi-state.")
They should have just told them to get lost
(We're talking about relations between America and another sovereign nation here; you're supposed to show some diplomatic respect.)
Honestly, the whole thread is a waste of time. It's just one news article about Canada insisting on its right to unhindered access to international waters. That's standard stuff, nothing new, and has zero to do with giving up territory, even though half the commenters seem to think it does.
I wonder what the other moderators think? It seems to be a characteristic of the "politics" forum (much like "history and historical topics") that right-leaning commenters tend to dominate—which means statements that others might find insulting are often treated as perfectly normal. Still, I can't help but feel that some boundaries ought to be established.
I believe expressions like these are improper:
Now those "Canadian-ish" types think they can block America's entry into the EU: [link] —that really crossed a line.
(Reading this again, I can see why the user's stance is taken, though they seem to have completely misunderstood the text—it was actually about how America could stall Canada's admission—but that term "Canadian-ish" still strikes me as highly offensive. It’s similar to calling people "Gypsies," "Mexicans," or "Blackies"...)
It’s tragic where we’ve ended up, being blackmailed by a quasi-state like Canada.
(Canada is a sovereign nation that America recognized twenty years ago; regardless of the well-known issues regarding "entities," one shouldn't refer to it as a "quasi-state.")
TI felt like it was necessary—really, absolutely necessary—to tell them, loud and clear, that they just need to pick a lane and stick to it. Why do people insist on hovering in this gray area? It’s much better to just commit to something once and for all.
When we look at the relationship between the United States and another sovereign nation, one really has to consider the delicate nature of diplomacy—it’s the kind of thing where certain matters simply aren't meant to be aired in public, wouldn't you agree?
Honestly, this entire thread feels somewhat aimless—as if we’re all just circling the drain without much of a point, don't you think? Just read one of those journalistic articles—you know the type—and I can't help but sit here and wonder about the layers beneath the surface. It’s funny how a single piece of reporting can trigger such a long chain of thought, isn't it? You start reading one paragraph, thinking you understand the scope of the situation, and then suddenly—bam—the author pulls back a curtain you didn't even know existed. It makes you question everything you thought you knew about the narrative being presented to the public. Is it just facts, or is there a subtle tilt to the lens? One has to wonder. There’s this ongoing discussion regarding how Canada insists on its right to unhindered access to international waters—which, if we're being honest, isn't exactly a revolutionary concept, is it? It’s a perfectly standard, reasonable demand for any nation to make. Yet, for some reason, a lot of people in these online debates have completely misread the situation—interpreting it as some sort of territorial concession when, in reality, it has nothing to do with giving up land at all. Why does everything have to be framed as a loss of sovereignty when it's really just about basic maritime rights?
Betty Hayes10 said:It looks like they’re cranking out as many as four films a day, not just two: CNN
Honestly, those comments from Nicolas Cage caught me off guard. What kind of mysticism—or ghosts—is he talking about?
I always assumed he was a bit more grounded, you know? Not someone prone to all this superstition.
mistyotter35 said:If the director happens to be a Tesla fan, they’re going to turn him into some sort of mystical hero—you know, attributing every single invention under the sun to him—much like those conspiracy theorists you see scrolling through endless threads on Reddit. Because let's face it, without that kind of mystical fluff, the movie would just fade into obscurity... though, honestly, I have a feeling it might end up being a bit of a dud regardless.