The guy you’re trying to pass the buck to, money_loo, is from a lemmy instance that only has Chicago sports communities and whose front page is mostly federated meme posts. You’re a BeeHaw user. You’ve presumably read and agreed to the Beehaw community documents.

I expect more than anti-intellectualism from you.

That definitely changes things. Out of curiosity, I looked up what other movies he directed and produced.

He produced and starred in American Sniper, which was incidentally also kind of a political disaster. The nose prosthetic reminds me of the American Sniper fake baby hilarity. Bradley put the blame on the director, but the director makes it sound like it was a monetary and not an artistic choice. That would put the responsibility on the shoulders of the producer.

So many questions!

Are you suggesting that the political aspects of technology shouldn’t be discussed in a technology community?

Are you implying that technology is apolitical? That there are technology subjects to discuss that don’t have a political component?

Do discussions of the applications of technology not belong in a technology community?

Yikes! They gave Bradley Cooper an even bigger nose than Leonard Bernstein. Is this some kind of antisemitic attack on Jake Gyllenhaal for not taking a pay cut to play the part?

If feel like this is more a studio scandal than a Cooper scandal. They did the casting and approved the prosthetic. I’m disappointed the actor gets the heat and the institution isn’t mentioned.

If you want to get angry at Bradley, his relationship with 21 year old Suki Waterhouse was super gross. The studio holds no blame for that mess.

Crack Attack! is a loving parody of addictive tetrislike games that is also an extremely addictive tetrislike game.

Do you remember when the decision of the 2011 grand jury was revealed? If they kept it secret to scare Assange, that’s still a pretty outrageous form of press intimidation.

Thanks. Yeah, I think I heard about this jury, but only that its deliberation was secret, and I never found out what was decided. When the indictment was unsealed, I assumed it was the revelation of this Jury’s decision.

You’re right, it was during the Trump administration. For some reason I thought the first indictment had been made and then sealed during Obama’s tenure. Trump’s attack was a major escalation.

I don’t see any reference to a Grand Jury in the linked article, and I can’t find anything in Google about “assange grand jury 2010”. Are you thinking about this section?

Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

It seems to indicate that they didn’t even bother to assemble a grand jury, which is even better for Obama.

the Grand Jury that was impaneled to look at Assange during the Obama years chose not to prosecute because they couldn’t disentangle other media outlets

One of us is confused; the history I remember is that the Grand Jury decided to prosecute not just once in a sealed indictment, but then added further controversial charges in a second indictment.

There were some very deluded people during the Trump years who thought Assange would get special treatment for his vendetta against Hillary Clinton helping to get Trump elected. But you nailed it right on the head – killing press freedoms and not paying debts are even bigger parts of Donald’s brand than gaudy letters on the sides of buildings.

But don’t get it twisted. Then Secretary of State Clinton went hard against Assange, and it did look bad for press freedoms in the US. You have to remember the State Department did not take press freedom seriously at all, abusing the espionage act left and right. They put more journalists sources in prison than any other previous president. They went after journalists families, like when they detained Glenn Greenwald’s partner in Heathrow. That should always be remembered as part of Barack Obama’s legacy.

The Trump “Fake News” era was absolutely devastating to journalism, so it’s easy to see Obama’s administration through rose tinted glasses. But it’s important to remember the damage they did that contributed to where we are today.

Fascists everywhere disappointed that antifascism is still protected speech in the United States.

Russia is still the world’s #2 arms exporter. Using supply domestically means that less can be exported, and more importantly, demonstrably under performing compared to western offering reduces demand.

There’s the real strategic concern that escalating too quickly will have nuclear repercussions. But the deeper reasons are visible if you view most governments as military industrial corporations stacked under a trenchcoat. The true motivator is that the longer the war continues, the more money will flow from their respective tax payers into their pockets. They don’t care about Ukrainian lives, they don’t care about Russian lives. The popular support for the war and lack of domestic casualties means they get to ply their trade of death, and they come out smelling like roses. Opposing Russian colonialism is a noble cause, but the nobility belongs to those who are dying in the foxholes, not the warmongers who are squeezing this crisis to get more capital.

Western leaders don’t want Ukraine to win. They want Russia to lose. A quick cauterized wound is less damaging than a slow bleed out. Total bankruptcy of the Russian war machine is the objective, the economic elimination of their primary trade competitor.

This is not an appropriate post for this community.

Sometimes people’s message is different from their words. Please don’t tell me not to say it like it is. And please don’t try and shame the oppressed for not being civil to oppressors.

The lesson to be learned from Daryl Davis is that bigots should be ostracized, ignored, and de-platformed. Once their movement has been defanged and members isolated to their anti-social groups, you can more safely reach out to those groups to deprogram the people on the margins, if that’s what you want to do with your life.

The story would be very different if the KKK still held social and political power. A black man who didn’t support the KKK’s mission attending a KKK rally would not last very long. No one should give these people a platform, or treat them civilly when they’re spreading their brain worms in civil society.

It’s frustrating that scientists start with the assertion that gun crime and not capitalism is the most pressing public safety concern, but at least they’re trying anti-poverty measures to reduce gun crime instead of more policing. It doesn’t take a PhD to realize poverty is the root cause of not just gun crime, but most social problems.

But this isn’t new. The last time academics tried something similar, the the violence interrupters, the Fraternal Order of Police lobbied against it to have it shut down. It was showing significant results, saving black lives and reducing gun violence. But the police saw it as a threat (and it was - anything that reduces crime is a threat to the institution of police), and they killed it.

I don’t think he’s trying to amend for past misdeeds – I think he’s just trying to live his life. If we lived in a restorative justice society instead of a punitive one, I’d have different expectations of him. We are a society ruled by war criminals who have never seen a day of prison. Things are hard enough for people who’ve survived incarceration, it’s a shitty thing to throw his past at him. Especially since the people who tend to do it are acting in bad faith, and whose actual beef is that he’s not simping for genocidal dictators.

If Beehaw made a dime every time a .ML tankie invaded a post to slander socialists, they’d have more money than Facebook.

Vox did an interview with David Graeber about this back in 2019.