- Last Active
- Administrator, Moderator, Supporter
So...this is what happened.and 2 others.
We got to chatting as he was working and I was getting along pretty well with him, we were laughing and joking around. After I while I felt pretty comfortable asking him and I said, "Listen, there's something I want to ask you..." and he cut me off and said "About the pizza, right?"
He said that he saw it on the counter and thought that it had been left there for him since he was working at dinner time - I left for work at 4:30pm...my gf came home at 7pm and he was gone, so he did his work sometime between 4:30-7:00. He told me that he ate a slice, then noticed the note that I'd left for my gf after he'd eaten it and didn't know what to do. He said that he regretted not leaving a note of his own and spent the whole night worrying that he'd get fired. His plan was to come and do the work today (he wasn't expecting me to be home) and order a pizza and leave it for us with a note explaining what happened. He seemed sincere, and I believed him. I told him that we didn't care about the pizza, we were just worried that other things might have gone missing...when I said that he went pale and told me that it didn't even occur to him. In criminology we call that an absence of mens rea - he was looking at the situation the way an innocent person would and lacked a guilty mind.
It turn out well!
I got called a "white knight soy latte drinking beta cuck" last night and I laughed by ass off. I was at a bar/cafe with a friend and there was a trans woman there by herself and some younger 'frat boy' types where there. They weren't being super aggressive or threatening towards her, but they were asking rude and uncomfortable questions and it was clear that the woman didn't want to interact with them. After a few minutes, I went over to her and asked her if she wanted to join my buddy and I until her friend showed up (earlier I'd heard her say that she was waiting for a friend). The guys started shouting stuff and it me, the owner told the guys to settle down and one of the guys said "why are you giving us shit and not the white knight soy latte drinking beta cuck?"
For the record, I don't think that I've ever had a latte - definitely not a soy one if I have.
I feel like the only person who didn't really care for 'Crocodile'. It was beautifully shot, but I felt it was just dark for darkness sake - not really rooted in social commentary as much as other episodes. Also, the beginning really reminded me of I Know What You Did Last Summer.
A crocodile is a danger that waits beneath the surface, the danger that it represents isn't immediately obvious. That's what the episode is saying about technology. The machine that was originally used exclusively by the police gained more wide spread social acceptance and was now being used for more mundane things like insurance investigations - it points to that privacy creep that we're all experiencing with Facebook selling our information, agencies like the NSA becoming more invasive etc. and how we've just accepted it. We see that in the scene where the insurance agent is sent to interview the dentist - he has thoughts/experiences that he doesn't want to share with a stranger ("to be honest, the memory is a bit embarrassing...do you have to use that thing?") but knows that there will be legal ramifications for him if he doesn't. Technology meant to help the police was now being used for something unintended and the consequence was this old guy - who would have known life in a time before the technology was around - having to admit homosexual desires to a stranger who was much younger - and probably has only known life when this tech was apart of life, or was young enough to embrace it without question.
To the main story, it's this helpful bit of technology that necessitates the murders. She's an architect, she meticulously plans things for a living - she thinks of everything (except, in true Black Mirror fashion, the hamster). She got away with the first murder because she covered it up, she likely would have gotten away with the second murder because she covered it up. Once the insurance agent shows up for something totally unrelated to the murders, the tech that is meant to be helpful becomes the reason why the insurance lady is murdered (and her husband and their kid). She gives herself an embarrassing memory by watching the porno, but as we saw with the dentist that doesn't matter - there is no privacy in a world where we accept memory-reading technology. Its the unintended consequences of the technology, the danger that lies beneath the surface...how privacy creep can become deadly.
It's already a long post, but the metaphor of the crocodile is carried out in a more obvious way too...the original body dumped into the lake is a crocodile - it's something literally beneath the surface that can hurt her (if discovered). She dumps the body of her ex beneath the new development that she designed, the 'wonders of modern living' (or however she referred to it in her presentation) literally built on a tragedy, another danger that lies below. Then the murderer herself becomes a crocodile, when the insurance agent travels off into the country side to interview an architect about a guy who got hit by a car she has no idea what danger is there waiting for her. And once the crocodile murders the insurance lady, her danger is no longer beneath the surface - she's exposed and becomes a predator hunting down the husband, and unexpectedly the child.
emnofseattle said:I think the last thing the Democratic Party would want is an immediate election over filibustering a budget in order to bring in millions of illegal aliens. We should adopt that policy because they would never have considered this a strategy If there was immediate pushback
Framing the issue as the Democrats valuing immigrants over Americans is falling flat with the public. 80%+ are in favour of DACA and no reasonable people are looking at a government where all three branches are controlled by the GOP and blaming the other party.
Doubling back to our conversation about the NRA....I don't know how statistically relevant this is, but it did make me think.
I was talking to a friend in Ohio about everything that happened recently, and mentioned that companies are ditching their affiliations with the NRA like crazy. When I said that, she said "Ah, that reminds me - I have to cancel my NRA membership". I was shocked to hear her say that she had a membership to cancel. She told me that a few years ago when she got insurance, her banker told her that if she bought a NRA membership for $30 (or something like that) she'd save hundreds of dollars on her insurance policy. Apparently tons of her friends were told the same thing - if you're buying insurance, buy a NRA membership - it will save you a ton of money.
We know that the NRA gets its money from gun manufacturers and not from its members (for the most part)...they just need membership numbers to have the appearance of a threatening voting block. I wonder how many of their NRA's members have no interest in guns and just bought it to save on insurance or some other thing?
Mod Note: there's nothing wrong with the current discussion, but just let me say this as a preemptive reminder to keep things civil. Anything that can be classified as 'friends who disagree' is totally cool...when things veer off towards the 'winner take all cut throat' type of argument it will be time to shut things down.
darwinfeeshy said:CretanBull said:Gojira!