Freauxzen
| Favorite team: | Washington State  |
| Location: | Washington |
| Biography: | LSU Alumni (2004) UWM (2007), Born and raised in LA. Moved from a cushy public sector job in Education to a crazy, cutting-edge, job in a tech/education. Currently a Software Executive. |
| Interests: | Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Sports (soccer player by nature), Movies, Arguing about random things, Useless Information |
| Occupation: | Software, Sales |
| Number of Posts: | 38559 |
| Registered on: | 2/14/2006 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Casting has officially begun on Ryan Coogler’s “X-Files” reboot
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/23/26 at 5:26 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
Point of pride for me.
If it's a point of pride to see no value in art, and that's what you want all art to look like. Not sure that should be a point of pride.
You would champion someone remaking Lord of the Rings with all gender-queer characters, and that the Ring grants total sexual bliss instead of turning someone invisible, and that's why it enchants people to put the ring on?
Great, now I've given them ideas.
1
re: Casting has officially begun on Ryan Coogler’s “X-Files” reboot
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/23/26 at 5:24 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
So the guy who respectfully continued and revitalized the Rocky franchise wants to do the same with The X-Files, and people are pissed because why?
Already addressed this.
quote:
I'd love to know at what point do these franchises become pristine keepsakes that are to remain untouched? Because the originators of those two franchises milked them for every penny they could.
Well, because you aren't really seeing the point. It has less to do with "when does the thing become a keepsake," and more to do with the intentions of the "remake-er," in my opinion. Not all remakes are the same, and not all re-makers are the same.
I'm only inferring that they shouldn't, if the intentions aren't honest. The problem is that we have gotten less and less honesty over time. More and more inserted messages and meanings. Recastings, gender changes, etc. It's just not creative at all, it does blur the meaning of the original to culture.
re: Casting has officially begun on Ryan Coogler’s “X-Files” reboot
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/23/26 at 4:33 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
Why not just create his own thing? Why does he need the X-Files IP to prop it up?
People who support this stuff can never answer this question. Or it's a lame version of the above: "But [insert property here] doesn't belong to you." They always go to belonging, rather than what a piece of culture is, and why it is a piece of culture in the first place.
They think it's just a title, and a group of people, and an object to gain revenue from. The X-Files doesn't exist as a unique thing. it is "Whatever you want it to mean to you."
F-ing Deconstruction and Post-modernism. It is a virus on the world.
re: Casting has officially begun on Ryan Coogler’s “X-Files” reboot
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/23/26 at 3:47 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
X-Files is commerical art designed for consumption.
So it's art, it's a narrative. Yes
quote:
And it's still available to you, the fans, the culture.
It's not a question of availability.
quote:
But, you don't own that art.
Never said I did.
quote:
The people that do have allowed for someone to reimagine the concept.
I know, but that means X-Files has no meaning, no identity.
quote:
Nothing is being replaced.
Replaced is the wrong word.
Like I said, I get it. You don't have to try to convince me, I understand that some people would prefer a world where every single product can mean whatever they want it to mean. But, again, that's just an empty world with no shared meaning. I don't expect you to agree that it's a bad thing, but that's what it is. To me, it's bad.
I like Coogler, and like I said, if he wants to do a new generation thing a la Creed and pay respect to the show, keep it in world, etc. Great. Creed and the ensuing movies were pretty good.
If he wants to take it and make it his own thing, especially if it comes with politicization and all the mess that leaves behind.
No one is stopping anyone from making a new science fiction show about conspiracies and aliens. Why does it HAVE to be X-Files if it isn't going to be "X-Files?"
Well, because SOME people, maybe Coogler, maybe not, want to twist things, remove them from the cultural consciousness, make it their own thing.
re: Casting has officially begun on Ryan Coogler’s “X-Files” reboot
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/23/26 at 3:33 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
If it's up for sale, yes. Why do we care what others create and consume?
Because art has meaning. If it does, then X-Files isn't something that can just be used for anyone's pleasure, commercially. It has a meaning, a fandom, a culture that is relevant.
Everything as a piece of revenue. Look, I get you may like that empty, meaningless world that that would create because profits such and such.
It's just not the one I'd prefer or champion.
It means nothing is actually real. Nothing is actually owned. Nothing has a meaning. X-Files doesn't actually mean "Quirky, Episodic Science Fiction show about conspiracy theories, aliens and myth at play in the modern world featuring a mismatched duo of heroes."
It just means "Science Fiction vehicle for anyone's take on science fiction and [insert social message here]."
It means nothing more than a title. I know some people believe in that, I just believe those people have no actual values or a belief in art.
re: Casting has officially begun on Ryan Coogler’s “X-Files” reboot
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/23/26 at 11:28 am to ATrillionaire
quote:
You still get to have X-Files. Coogler fans get Ryan Coogler's X-Files. Everyone wins.
So then every single piece of art, can just be repurposed to be a vehicle for anyone's ideas? Sounds terrible, sounds like art has no meaning.
And in theory I don't have a problem with this..... unless it becomes another vehicle for some social justice message.
If Coogler comes in an makes a new generation a la Creed - then great.
re: Justice Clarence Thomas lets the media know when he will leave the SCOTUS
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/21/26 at 8:27 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Top 10 All time American.
quote:
No. You didn't. It is an example of bitching that falls flat on experienced ears. You didn't have to take a loan out for college. You chose to. Now that is a-okay. But don't expect others who chose differently to suffer your whining well, especially as you combine bitching about previous gens you literally know nothing about, with what you view as your own unique generational challenges now.
Goodness.
Ah yes, the typical "You didn't need a college degree" Boomer Myth. As with a lot of these issues, Boomers fail to see their policy problems.
You do need a college degree, and will need one for the foreseeable future.
The first issue is that by somewhere around 1998-2000, it's tough to nail the specific year, most jobs that had earnings above the national average, even if the work itself wasn't college-degree oriented, required a college degree. Corporate America was doing this, after eliminating pensions and real investments in employees, as it offloaded training and job prep to the institutions. this ruined college and it's purpose. College was never meant for everyone, but Corporate greed needed a different kind of filter that they didn't have to pay for. This was mainly Boomer driven.
Now, I'll admit that the "College is the great equalizer" belief started mostly with the GI Bill and some of Johnson's policies, but it went into overdrive with Boomers, corporate efficiency, etc.
What happened along side changes in corporate culture:
Increase borrowing capacity — Unsubsidized loans (1992) - Bill Clinton (Boomer), expanded loan limits, and the elimination of private lenders (2010) Obama - Boomer Students could now borrow incredible amounts of money, affecting access, college, price, etc. Both driven by Boomer Presidents. Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) — 2010 in specific was terrible for everyone. SAFRA terminated the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program entirely, making all new federal student loans direct loans issued by the Department of Education. It also increased Pell Grant funding.
Mandate testing and standards — NCLB (2001), Race to the Top (2009), and Common Core (2010) created a K-12 pipeline designed to funnel as many students as possible toward college. Bush 2 (Boomer) and Obama again. Ruined K-12 education.
Shift costs to students — State disinvestment in public universities, combined with the availability of easy federal loans, allowed institutions to raise tuition aggressively. - Who was in charge of institutions while they did all of this, aggressively pursued campus expansions and administrative staff, etc. - Boomers.
Collectively, Boomers created a system that treats college as compulsory, finances it through debt, measures its pipeline through standardized tests, and leaves younger generations to absorb the consequences. The federal budget for postsecondary education grew from $3.4 billion in 1970 to over $135 billion annually by the 2020s.
Just a brutal change. So yes, you HAVE to get a degree to even get a decent job, and yes Boomers made it a lot more painful.
re: Social Security and Medicare need to be eliminated
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/20/26 at 11:39 pm to sparkinator
quote:
Who are you sitting like God Almighty pronouncing judgements on generations? You decide who gets to keep their rightful payout and who is the group to get cutout. Then you blame Boomers for being selfish because they won’t accept your judgement and call them ungrateful for not being thankful and understanding for not getting their retirement.
frick off!
quote:
Crickets!!!
And get rid of deadbeats getting disability and children’s benefits. Those kids didn’t pay in to SS. Why should they get benefits? Thats not what it was designed for. Pull that money out of welfare or some other government budget.
And foreigners shouldn’t get SS payments. This was set up for US citizens. Pull that money out of welfare too, or cut that expenditure out completely.
Your generation is in charge now, whippersnapper, so “Chop chop.” Snap to it! Y’all need to straighten this out so I can get my check! yall are in charge now, so the blame going forward lies at y’all’s feet!
quote:
You’re full of shite. Boomers didn’t spend their working years “enriching” ourselves. We were fricking supporting the kids (that we love) through their early years, paid for their college fees that weren’t covered by scholarships, allowed them to move back home when the well-paying jobs weren’t there and they couldn’t afford to live on their own into their 30s. My youngest (of four) is wrapping up her sophomore year at college and yes, I am paying for that with two more years to go.
I have spent my so-called “boomer enrichment” on the next couple of generations, so eff off.
quote:
I literally hate these Boomer smashing threads. We have a living trust. My 3 kids will be OK when we're gone. If we were as you all describe, we would be in Las Vegas every weekend, driving $100K trucks (mine is 2012 F150) and my wife drives a 2015. Maybe we are outliers but I suspect you all just whiney shits with your hands out.
Boomers, calm down. This isn't about you specifically. It's about you as a cultural force, and a decision making block. You've made some pretty awful decisions and don't really care about the repercussions. It's why you protect SS and don't let anyone make changes. Among other things.
Like I said, I get it. It's just - the generations before you were at least slightly more giving and noble about "leaving a better world," hence what you had. While the generations after you are just stuck with your bill.
We get it. You were the only people to work from age 14 on. You were the only ones to have jobs your whole life. the only ones who worked your way through college. the only ones who have had to struggle in a variety of ways. Etc. We all know that. we hear it every day.
The way you constantly speak down to other generations is pretty telling - again you think you've left behind a utopia. You won't even admit that SS is a problem that needs to be fixed. Or that the two parent household is a bad idea. etc. Or that college is ridiculously expensive. it's all such an amazing achievement what you have accomplished and everybody else sucks because they see it differently.
ETA: Millenials have a whole bunch of problems, we are way to liberal as a group, we often put comfort first, we are shortsighted. But just like the Boomer mindset comes from being the product of generations that had to pinch pennies, hence a whole bunch of selfishness. Millenials come from a more comfort-obsessed generation and we REALLY like it. it's created it's own share of problems, and we have a massive instant gratification problem. not a lot of patience. So I'm not saying Boomers are the only bad generation, we all have faults. But whereas Millenial problems, outside of being too liberal, are highly inward focused. boomer problems crush the economy. And they have had WAY more power to fix it, and consistently chose not to.
re: Social Security and Medicare need to be eliminated
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/20/26 at 11:25 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Like I posted earlier, the wake of destruction that the Boomers left behind is the cultural rot that they popularized. Feminism, hedonism, post-modernism, etc.
well yes, 100% this too.
quote:
But the timeline just doesn't work for the narrative of "The Boomers had it all."
I'm not saying they made all the bad decisions, but they were set up incredibly well and then proceeded to pillage the future for their own gain to a huge effect.
College was between $1,500-$2,500 or $10,000-$15,000 adjusted for inflation per year. Completely different startup costs for a life. I'll get to the bigger problem on this in a response below.
quote:
There's no magic generation who "had it all" and squandered it.
The Boomers didn't squander it for themselves, no. they squandered the economic structure they benefited from for future generations and left us with an unstable mess of corporate greed, social welfare, etc.
re: Social Security and Medicare need to be eliminated
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/20/26 at 5:50 pm to UptownJoeBrown
quote:
No. The younger generations have been handed everything. They just don’t want to work and sacrifice for it.
There it is...
Yet another typical Boomer response
"We are leaving you a perfect Utopia of Economic and Domestic prosperity. We are amazing, you just don't want to work."
Typical Boomer ideology. Like clockwork.
My favorite Boomer responses:
1. "We had to work for everything we got and you didn't. Uphill Both ways."
2. "We made no bad decisions for society or economy. We are the perfect Human organizers. The best the world has ever seen. Bow to our political perfection. we left no problems in the world. Only utopia."
3. "You should be glad to support us with your tax dollars for everything we have done for you. Bow to us."
re: Social Security and Medicare need to be eliminated
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/20/26 at 5:12 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
Didn't get a damn thing handed to me.
Don't take it personally, really.
Look, I'm not saying you didn't work as a person, I'm saying the generation was given a situation far ahead of anyone else before them and after them. You were handed a mostly well-structured economy, a one income-based economy with a good housing market. Wasn't outsourced, didn't have the complexity of such dominant social programs, etc.
Boomers had something unique, and instead of continuing the good will, Boomers operated in a far more selfish capacity as a generation, completely changed the economic structure, and they did it while they were in power, held power longer than everyone else, and continue to support sinking ships like SS. All of the choices Boomers made while they were the dominant generation were to enrich themselves in that moment, without any thought given to the future. That is true. (But Boomers do think they built some kind of utopia for all other generations, it's hilarious)
You want yours. Look, I get it. Of course that's a natural feeling.
But sacrifice is a thing. Doing the right thing matters. And there is a "right" move here. There is a sacrifice that SOMEONE is going to make. That much is clear. Boomers could realize what they did and maybe help figure out a better way. But again, I don't expect much from a selfish generation.
Here's the thing, you think:
quote:
Started working at age 14 doing farm work, laid sod, worked as a carpenter building houses, worked in a meat packing plant, ran heavy equipment, worked on the railroad, went back to school at age 29 for electronic school, took out the loans for school, got an Associates Degree in Applied Science Electronic Technology, after I graduated school I worked for a small circuit board repair company, left there and went to Garmin, left there and went to Allied Signal/Honeywell, left there and worked for SBC/AT+T for 25 years and retired at age 64.
This is unique? I could rattle off, I had my first job at 12. I had to take a loan out for college, my first job was $35,000 in 2007 out of grad school which doesn't pay for a house blah blah blah. Had a housing crisis, a crash, an economy for two working parents and excessive child and healthcare costs, etc. But I'm not rattling off these things because I think I'm owed something special. it's to hopefully put it into perspective that your individual experience is irrelevant. People have it better and worse than me or you.
But there is a problem to solve, and a hit to take and with all of the good that Boomers had and leveraged the future against, it would be best if they took the hit. It would be right. It would be noble.
But it won't be Boomers. It's not in their blood, they've never proven to leave a better world for those after them. Just debt and brokenness.
re: Social Security and Medicare need to be eliminated
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/20/26 at 4:52 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
Pure poppycock.
If the federal government would cut the wife and myself a check for $1.5 million that should cover all the taxes we and our employers have paid into SS and Medicare over the past 45 years. The $1.5 million includes an annual return of 4-5%.
But to not do it, means someone else will have to sacrifice. Like I said, I don't expect a noble response from Boomers, they were handed everything, will take everything. It's the goal of that generation.
To get everything for themselves and not worry about the consequences. Someone else can take the hit.
Boomers have put an enormous amount of economic pressure on later generations. Someone has to sacrifice and it should be the Boomers, younger generations have paid a lot to support them. Will they step up to the plate?
Nope.
Any other solution, even ending it, which I would support, will just cause younger generations further economic strain.
But yeah, we should probably shoulder the burden and be done with Boomer influence for good. It's the right thing to do - which typically escapes Boomers.
quote:
Fine, eliminate it, but there better be a pay out for what I have put in
Nope.
Any other solution, even ending it, which I would support, will just cause younger generations further economic strain.
But yeah, we should probably shoulder the burden and be done with Boomer influence for good. It's the right thing to do - which typically escapes Boomers.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/20/26 at 3:56 pm to Boodis Man
quote:
Not the desert god described in the Bible (the one that gets jealous and allows genocide, rape , slavery etc) . Thats for damn sure
Still didn't answer the question. Seems like you have a lot of anger.
What made the star?
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/20/26 at 1:26 pm to Boodis Man
quote:
Every single atom in our bodies was manufactured inside a star
What made the star?
quote:
Soft drinks are about a $400B industry. SNAP money is around $14B/yr in soda purchases. Thus, SNAP is about 3.5%, roughly. Let's round up and call it 5%.
All you've done is make an argument for them to ban soda for everyone. If it's so bad, and the vast majority is non-SNAP, then why would you not ban it for everyone? If you talk about medical costs, the response will be that the govt tends to pay less when it covers Medicare / Medicaid bills. Then, you're advocating for federalized healthcare.
You are creating an argument against choice, against freedom, and in favor of more Big Brother controlling your life.
Freedom and Government subsidized freedom are two completely different things.
Or let's put it another way...
A bunch of people choosing to do something on their own, with their own resources and want is very different from a bunch of people incentivized and subsidized by the government to do something. This creates different levers and systems to support and perpetuate. If you can't see that I am sorry. It's true.
quote:
To start, what would you say is the purpose of demonic possession, from Satan’s perspective?
You want to start here and not with the conundrum? Let's go....
Start at the top, what is the world, what is God and what is Satan really. You don't need to believe in a deity to observe, so walk with me through this.
Order: The universe functions on a complex, intelligible code - Eternal Law. We were built to do something, within that Order, but were given free will to reject that order, with Satan's help,- and we did. That choice creates "Original Sin," and disconnects us naturally from the Order. We are still called to the Order - that's what Christianity is - but we are vulnerable.
The Fall: For lack of a better word, Original Sin is like a virus, a stain if we are God's art, that we created for ourselves. So we now live in a Fallen world, where, really Satan actually has influence.
And it's constant. Severing man from God.
We can get into this too - but long story short - Satan's goal is to continue to divide man from God. Period. Everything is pointed at that goal, from his perspective. It started with Original Sin and continues today. This takes a variety forms, for possession it's about mocking God's creation, but again, most of the "Hey that dude on a Youtube video is possessed," is not possession, that's influence. Or, as Aquinas would say Ordinary Action vs. Extraordinary action.
Take Temptation. Pretty common. It is invisible, subtle, and aligns with an invisible force - not something people would ascribe to the Devil. "Greatest Trick," like you mentioned. Temptation, lust - are not ordered things, or better said, part of Original Sin was disconnecting the core parts of our nature, reason and will, from each other. Hence, Lust. They drive to disorder humans actively. So not the ranting Youtube lunatic, but that's normal everyday stuff. There's a ton here to dissect, I know.
Possessions - much more rare actually. For most people, the devil prefers you to be a comfortable, functional atheist than a writhing, levitating possessed person who might scare their family back to Church. See the aforementioned mentions of Screwtape Letters - great analysis of it.
But the goal is ALWAYS the same. Continue to disconnect Man from God. I'm going to guess there's no amount of evidence I could present to make you believe in exorcisms - and that's the point. Honestly, demonic possession is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things.
quote:
That reminds me of a genuine question I’ve been wanting to ask: it seems like most Christians simultaneously believe the following:
1. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist
2. Spiritual warfare/demonic possession/etc are not only real, but common
Does the latter not utterly undermine the former?
Not at all. Happy to have this conversation here or in another thread. There's obviously a lot of nuance to the whole thing.
To your point about the videos saying "That person is possessed," is a pretty strong use of how those things (whatever you do want to call them) act.
Possession is a very specific thing. Most recognition of evil that we attempt to label is not possession and is more "Influential" than anything else.
quote:
Why would you take junk food off of snap? Junk food is cheap and high calorie? It’s made from the most basic crappy ingredients. Corn, sugar, grains, oils. Horrible for you, but it’s shelf stable and will keep you alive. You want them eating chicken, steak and fresh produce?? That would cost way more
You've obviously never thought through the actual problems of subsidizing bad things via the government have you?
1. Well, first off all it's bad for you, as you admit, and it's easy and much of the ingredients create biological problems - sugar is naturally addicting, seed oils mess with gut biome/satiation, etc. So people eat and buy more, can tell when they are full, are addicted to sugar, etc.
2. Not only that, they create long term health problems across a wide portion of the population, which then impacts healthcare spend, doctor's visits etc.
3. You've also created a group, Big Food, that can use addicting, cheap things as a way to funnel money via those government subsidies. Their pocketbook is directly tied to government intervention, so they are incentivized to create and lobby for SNAP, to make sure "bad things" continue to go to a large portion of people, create addicts, influence politicians, etc. And since there is no control on that - THEY have control. The subsidy becomes a stable form of revenue for them, and a controllable one, so it must be protected. SO what do you do with that?
4. Oh look, let's target kids with marketing and hook them early, no limitations there either. Sugary breakfast cereal as a "complete" meal? Sign everyone up.
Boom. You've incentivized Corporate interests to create a pipeline of sugar addicts from an early age to create a stable flow of revenue from tax paying citizens, to the government, and into the hands of Big Food. You've given them a structure to replicate and control with money and power at a political level - and that structure is a net drain on society in multiple ways. But it is revenue and it is incentivized to increase not only the revenue - but creating more SNAP users themselves. Immigration. Decreasing focus on the family, etc. To improve this revenue, here's what you don't want - Two Stable parents who are conscious of food choices, have a stable home to actually make good purchasing decisions.
What you do want to incentivize, from the corporate end, is a two parent working household where the parents have no time to put together meals, so pop tarts and cereal and Kool Aid is the way. As a corporate industry, you want LESS STABILITY and less knowledge, and you will pursue creating that atmosphere with your billions of dollars.
So in one policy you have impacted - child health, health care, the balance of power over the food basket, lobbying and politicians, etc.
Congratulations. But if you are defending the centrist in this thread, and maybe lable yourself as a centrist, I'd see why you never actually think through the repercussions of this kind of policy.
re: Lee Cronin's The Mummy trailer
Posted by Freauxzen on 2/18/26 at 12:58 pm to Handsome Pete
w t f
In I guess?
Interesting to go with a short time mummy, rather than something ancient, or.....
In I guess?
Interesting to go with a short time mummy, rather than something ancient, or.....
Popular
17
