Quote from: Eoin McLove on October 26, 2019, 09:47:30 PM
I watched Three Girls today.  Incredible story.

Is this a tv show or have you become a peeping tom?


Definitely won't bother with a season 2 of The Boys if there is one. Only episode 7 came close to where I'd put the benchmark for "good" television.

I thought the first few episodes of the Boys were OK, nothing amazing mind, and by the time I got to maybe the fifth or sixth episode, had no inclination to go back for any more. The last series that managed to hold my attention over a full season was the Terror.

I watched the first seven episodes of Living With Yourself this evening.  Despite generally not being a fan of Paul Rudd I'm really enjoying it.  Nice mix of sci- fi and black humour.  I heard someone talking about it on the radio and they said it ends disappointingly, and that they have obviously set it up for season 2 but I'll plough on. Seems like the kind of story they could wrap up nicely in a single season or drag the ring out of four three or four (Stranger Things!).

I watched the final episode.  They could have gone quite dark with it and finished it there but the ending was amusing none the less. 

Went through the two seasons of Fleabag during the week. Suitably impressed, really audacious balancing act to attempt but the dialogue was excellent and the performances second to none across the board. I'm sure many would be turned off after a few minutes, but folk often seem to be under the impression you have to instantly click with a protagonist in order to appreciate a narrative, which is ultimately restrictive.


I read up until the point she mentioned Jordan Peterson's book being aimed at incels and realised I was reading the words of a lunatic.  Fucking Hell... How could anyone in their right mind read or listen to anything Peterson says and equate it with these sleazy proto-rapists. Totally undermined herself there, I'm afraid.

In this common mainstream narrative men are doomed whatever they do.  We have to simply accept that we are scum.  What rational decent person wouldn't look at this game playing shit and see it for the pathetic money making racket verging on outright rape that it is? What rational decent person wouldn't look at their opposite counterpart (who this ridiculous writer somehow seems to confuse as being the same thing) incel weirdos as sad and pathetic? How do either of those life models equate in any way to Peterson's message to men to strive to improve their situation to make themselves worthy of a healthy relationship? And he gets lambasted and accused of inciting corruptive moral behaviour by telling men to be better human beings? None of it adds up to me,  but that's the insane message that has somehow become the norm.  If you're a man you're scum.  If you're white,  extra scum points.  If you're straight,  you win the scum jackpot.

Get fucked!

Quote"[It] paved the way for other masculinised self-help formations to emerge, such as Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life," says O'Neill. Peterson, a Canadian academic, published his bestselling self-help tome in 2018 and is a critic of feminism. "It also connects with masculinist factions such as the incel movement ["involuntary celibates" – characterised by an extreme hatred of women], and men's rights activists."

"O'Neill" isn't the author of the piece and she doesn't say Peterson's book was "aimed at" incels, she says "it" "connects with" them, but the "it" doesn't even refer to Peterson's book!

Saw adds the other day for a show called Darklands never heard of it before any good? Looks like love hate.

My sister sent me a clip of it and I thought it was either a parody or something a FAS youth outreach drama group had made.

It's set in Bray. Sketch.

Quote from: Black Shepherd Carnage on November 05, 2019, 03:30:25 PM
Quote"[It] paved the way for other masculinised self-help formations to emerge, such as Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life," says O'Neill. Peterson, a Canadian academic, published his bestselling self-help tome in 2018 and is a critic of feminism. "It also connects with masculinist factions such as the incel movement ["involuntary celibates" – characterised by an extreme hatred of women], and men's rights activists."

"O'Neill" isn't the author of the piece and she doesn't say Peterson's book was "aimed at" incels, she says "it" "connects with" them, but the "it" doesn't even refer to Peterson's book!

It's all a bit woolly and bullshitty. She quotes someone as saying that this coaching on how to technically get around the tricky issue of rape 'paves the way' for Jordan Peterson's book.  How can something 'pave the way' for its exact opposite? It's alluding to some kind of parallel between two things that are mutually exclusive. It's drawing false equivalences as well (isn't this usually the kind of bollocks you like to pull apart?), incels probably read Jordan Peterson's books and they probably also drink tea, so tea drinkers are suspect.  You make a bullshit tenuous link and let it fester.  This thinly veiled misandry is disgusting.  It's a shit sandwich and you can choose to call it out for what it is or you pinch your nose, munch it down and call it salmon and caviar.

Watched season two of "Jack Ryan" - nowhere near as good as the first year but still enjoyable. John Krasinski is great in it but the storyline is fairly weak and there's too many side plots that go nowhere. The main antagonist is never as convincing or compelling as last year's villain either.