SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is September 26th, 2021, 8:28pm
Please login or register.
Was PortalRecent PostsHome Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
The scripts of the September, 2021 "Goodbye" One Week Challenge.


The January Project!
If you want access to the January Project, click here

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Discussion of...     General Chat  ›  I'll just leave this one here... Moderators: bert
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 2 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    I'll just leave this one here...  (currently 4891 views)
Andrew
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 2:02pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39

Quoted from Zack
Thanks for sharing, Andrew! Keep'em coming.


Will do


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 120 - 238
Zack
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 2:03pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group


Don't get it right. Get it written.

Location
Kentucky
Posts
3971
Posts Per Day
0.71

Quoted from Andrew


I donít personally subscribe to the Trump accusations of a stolen election.

However, I find it beyond frustrating that those who complain about it most are the same people most loudly claiming Russia stole the election 4 years before.

The hypocrisy is simply too much to bear.

Both sides of this issue are complicit in undermining the integrity of democracy, in my view.

Now it may be one or both are correct, but neither have been able to prove it, and like to use it to throw red meat to the base.


Again, couldn't agree more! The hypocrisy of it all is the most frustrating part!  


WITCH HUNT - horror, 77 pgs

THE 1997 TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE - horror, 82 pgs

HERE COMES THE BOGEYMAN - horror, 24 pgs
Logged
Private Message Reply: 121 - 238
Zack
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 2:29pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group


Don't get it right. Get it written.

Location
Kentucky
Posts
3971
Posts Per Day
0.71
I'll share one. Think it's pretty relevant.



WITCH HUNT - horror, 77 pgs

THE 1997 TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE - horror, 82 pgs

HERE COMES THE BOGEYMAN - horror, 24 pgs
Logged
Private Message Reply: 122 - 238
eldave1
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 4:25pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6910
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew


Have to agree to disagree on this one.

Ocasio-Cortez is - rightly - mocked by the right, and many liberals (of left and right persuasion), but is presented in painfully flattering light in media. Regardless, my point is thereís a default where ideas presented from the left are prepackaged and assumed to be inherently decent, whereas on the right ideas are prepackaged and assumed to be indecent.

So the lens with which the ideas are treated through is filtered by the messenger, and not the message.  


You're wrong as there is no single messenger.

On one hand, the largest cable company (FOX), largest local TV conglomerate (Sinclair) almost every AM radio station, a plethora of websites and internet news outlets are oftentimes the messenger and they vilify AOC and provide sainthood status to right-wing loons. Your "default" doesn't exist with these outlets.

Conversely, MSNBC, CNN a whole host of left-leaning websites saint AOC and others on the left and vilify even the most reasonable voices on the right.

i.e., There is no one messenger and there is no such entity as "the media".  And you must know that at some level, Andrew. You don't think it is an accident that we are so split down the middle do you???? We are split down the middle because the media forces on the left and the right both suck in terms of truth and both have significant influence and power. It's obvious isn't it?




My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 123 - 238
Grandma Bear
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 4:53pm Report to Moderator
Administrator



Location
The Swamp...
Posts
7530
Posts Per Day
1.52
Took me awhile to read through all the comments here. Sometimes it sucks to be a mod.  

Anyway, IMHO, media has become a scary thing. Doesn't really matter which side they lean to. In the days before the internet and social media, the media was more unbiased. People delivered the news without making faces or hyping anything. There were also fewer news outlets. With the internet came an explosion of new news sources. People could pick and chose which news they wanted. Enter social media and now everyone on this planet can chime in on said news. The waters get muddy and sometimes it's hard to know what's true and what's not. Everyone fighting for viewers and clicks. Not saying things were better in the old days because who knows if we were getting skewed news back then as well. All I know is that I trust absolutely no one these days. At least not as far as information goes.

Now I'm going to catch up on the Jan Project thread. Hopefully it's not as long as this one or it's going to take me all evening to respond.  


.
SS, is still free...
Logged
Private Message Reply: 124 - 238
eldave1
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 5:07pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6910
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew


Peterson is super smart. He is thoughtful, sincere and clearly cares about complexity. Itís irksome when this incredibly smart guy is framed as being ill-intentioned, or supposedly incomplete in his thinking, but itís all good. Everyone sees something different, and thatís fine.

The reason I posted that clip wasnít to necessarily debate the pay gap, but to highlight the brazen attempt to frame his positions in an ideologically convenient manner, which not only misrepresents his views, but is amusingly transparent in this case. Cathy Newman embarrassed herself in this, and itís cringeworthy to watch.

Petersonís position here is simple:

- There exists a gap in wages, but that this gap presented as Ďmen get paid more than womení doesnít factor in multivariate analyses, i.e. age, seniority, industry, personality types, etc.

So if youíre not breaking down your analysis to compare like for like, and only conduct univariate analysis, itís a bogus statistic. Thatís not remotely controversial. When you compare female nurses with male MDs at Goldman Sachs and use that to prove men get paid more than women, itís a ridiculous statement, because MDs get paid more than nurses. The core variable determining that pay discrepancy is the market, i.e. the wage value placed on the role. Gender isnít the issue. Thatís a crude breakdown of his point.

Now if youíre comparing male and female MDs at Goldman, and thereís a discrepancy, thatís a fair point of debate. Petersonís point is the debate and statement doesnít go that granular; it simply uses all data and makes a point that correlation is causation, which is intellectually deficient. None of which is to say sexism doesnít exist, but we have to deal with facts, and rigorous research methods, and not frivolous ideology.


Like we watched two different videos.

Yes - the oft-quoted 77% pay gap is a horribly inaccurate number and anyone is right in pointing that out.  At the same time, the fact is that there is a pay gap even when all these variables are accounted for.

Peterson would have you believe that the gap is primarily explained by this:


Quoted Text
" womenís tendency for neuroticism Ė their likelihood to experience stress, depression and unpredictability Ė and their high level of agreeableness, to be cooperative and compassionate.


Without scientific proof. Pure conjecture and smack dab against common sense to boot. How would Peterson explain women's progress if indeed these things were true? We have made strides every decade and we are headed toward parity. When we reach parity - will his argument be - well, I guess that women no longer have a tendency towards neuroticism of that women must have become less agreeable???? PS - he won't of course as he believes these traits are innate. Which again, undermines his own theory on causality - if they are innate - how does one explain the progress that has been made?

BTW - you do know that in the very recent past - non-agreeable were more likely to be categorized as bitch and shrill by their male peers than they were to be complimented for their strong leadership - dude, I lived that for decades.

So, still, a fail for me for this guy. Because as I said before - I believe he is smarter than that.

Here is where I would respect Peterson. If he said:

- The actual pay gap is XX% when controlled for blah, blah -

Where I lose respect for him is when he inserts a totally unsubstantiated thesis for the gap.

Because he knows better. He doesn't say that because it won't yield clicks on his video and he won't sell books.


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts

Revision History (1 edits)
eldave1  -  May 24th, 2021, 5:37pm
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 125 - 238
eldave1
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 5:14pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6910
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Grandma Bear
Took me awhile to read through all the comments here. Sometimes it sucks to be a mod.  

Anyway, IMHO, media has become a scary thing. Doesn't really matter which side they lean to. In the days before the internet and social media, the media was more unbiased. People delivered the news without making faces or hyping anything. There were also fewer news outlets. With the internet came an explosion of new news sources. People could pick and chose which news they wanted. Enter social media and now everyone on this planet can chime in on said news. The waters get muddy and sometimes it's hard to know what's true and what's not. Everyone fighting for viewers and clicks. Not saying things were better in the old days because who knows if we were getting skewed news back then as well. All I know is that I trust absolutely no one these days. At least not as far as information goes.

Now I'm going to catch up on the Jan Project thread. Hopefully it's not as long as this one or it's going to take me all evening to respond.  


Concur


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 126 - 238
Andrew
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 5:52pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39

Quoted from eldave1


You're wrong as there is no single messenger.

On one hand, the largest cable company (FOX), largest local TV conglomerate (Sinclair) almost every AM radio station, a plethora of websites and internet news outlets are oftentimes the messenger and they vilify AOC and provide sainthood status to right-wing loons. Your "default" doesn't exist with these outlets.

Conversely, MSNBC, CNN a whole host of left-leaning websites saint AOC and others on the left and vilify even the most reasonable voices on the right.

i.e., There is no one messenger and there is no such entity as "the media".  And you must know that at some level, Andrew. You don't think it is an accident that we are so split down the middle do you???? We are split down the middle because the media forces on the left and the right both suck in terms of truth and both have significant influence and power. It's obvious isn't it?




It starts to become sticky when we enter the territory of, ďyouíre wrongĒ.

Youíre entitled to disagree, but that sounds a little angry.

I do think youíre being disagreeable on this one. So itís an easy agree to disagree.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 127 - 238
Andrew
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 5:55pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39

Quoted from eldave1


Like we watched two different videos.

Yes - the oft-quoted 77% pay gap is a horribly inaccurate number and anyone is right in pointing that out.  At the same time, the fact is that there is a pay gap even when all these variables are accounted for.

Peterson would have you believe that the gap is primarily explained by this:



Without scientific proof. Pure conjecture and smack dab against common sense to boot. How would Peterson explain women's progress if indeed these things were true? We have made strides every decade and we are headed toward parity. When we reach parity - will his argument be - well, I guess that women no longer have a tendency towards neuroticism of that women must have become less agreeable???? PS - he won't of course as he believes these traits are innate. Which again, undermines his own theory on causality - if they are innate - how does one explain the progress that has been made?

BTW - you do know that in the very recent past - non-agreeable were more likely to be categorized as bitch and shrill by their male peers than they were to be complimented for their strong leadership - dude, I lived that for decades.

So, still, a fail for me for this guy. Because as I said before - I believe he is smarter than that.

Here is where I would respect Peterson. If he said:

- The actual pay gap is XX% when controlled for blah, blah -

Where I lose respect for him is when he inserts a totally unsubstantiated thesis for the gap.

Because he knows better. He doesn't say that because it won't yield clicks on his video and he won't sell books.


Itís fine to disagree with Peterson, but quite honestly, I do think youíre misrepresenting his argument.

And the notion he is selling junk to bigots is exactly the point I was making earlier about Ocasio-Cortez. This belief that if a message is considered right wing, itís profit driven, or catering to bigotry, whereas messaging on the left is genuinely held.

On the substance, again, itís an agree to disagree.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 128 - 238
eldave1
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 6:44pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6910
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew


It starts to become sticky when we enter the territory of, ďyouíre wrongĒ.

Youíre entitled to disagree, but that sounds a little angry.

I do think youíre being disagreeable on this one. So itís an easy agree to disagree.


Oh c'mon, Andrew - that's being just a little tender.  I really don't see too much distance between agree to disagree and you're wrong. AND - virtually no distance from calling someone disagreeable. As you just did. The ground ain't any higher there, mate.

Ya see, what you did there is escalate between what is a difference of opinion to asserting that my difference of opinion must be rooted in my emotional state (disagreeable) vs. an honest difference of opinion.

Tsk. Tsk. See kettle......





My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 129 - 238
PKCardinal
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 6:51pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Kansas
Posts
1083
Posts Per Day
0.79
The next time you see the words... "good point, hadn't thought of it that way" on the internet will be the first time they've ever been written.

It's really why it makes almost zero sense to engage in any political threads. I constantly remind myself of this fact... and yet, I STILL sometimes can't help myself.


PaulKWrites.com

60 Feet Under - Low budget, contained thriller/Feature
The Hand of God - Low budget, semi-contained thriller/Feature
Wait Till Next Year - Disney-style family sports comedy/Feature

Many shorts available for production: comedy, thriller, drama, light horror
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 130 - 238
eldave1
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 6:56pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6910
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from Andrew


Itís fine to disagree with Peterson, but quite honestly, I do think youíre misrepresenting his argument.

And the notion he is selling junk to bigots is exactly the point I was making earlier about Ocasio-Cortez. This belief that if a message is considered right wing, itís profit driven, or catering to bigotry, whereas messaging on the left is genuinely held.

On the substance, again, itís an agree to disagree.


Please be specific - which argument am I misrepresenting? I've seen tons of his videos and posts and believed I cited him him verbatim in this case. I'd be interested in knowing where you think I got him wrong.

In terms of him selling junk...

Junk is your term - but okay. I do think much like others (let's say Shapiro on the right and Franken on the left) they stake out extreme positions in order to generate interest and sell stuff. Moderation doesn't sell. And...

For clarification - I never said I believed that all the views accepted and proposed by the left media are genuinely held. I didn't disagree that they diminish out of hand right-wing views,  pundits and positions. Instead, what I argued was that is exactly also what the righ-wing media does to left-wing views,  pundits, and positions.



My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 131 - 238
eldave1
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 6:58pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6910
Posts Per Day
2.65

Quoted from PKCardinal
The next time you see the words... "good point, hadn't thought of it that way" on the internet will be the first time they've ever been written.

It's really why it makes almost zero sense to engage in any political threads. I constantly remind myself of this fact... and yet, I STILL sometimes can't help myself.


Brilliantly said.

Or as I guess I would put it in my disagreeable persona

You're right.


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 132 - 238
Andrew
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 7:24pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.39

Quoted from eldave1


Oh c'mon, Andrew - that's being just a little tender.  I really don't see too much distance between agree to disagree and you're wrong. AND - virtually no distance from calling someone disagreeable. As you just did. The ground ain't any higher there, mate.

Ya see, what you did there is escalate between what is a difference of opinion to asserting that my difference of opinion must be rooted in my emotional state (disagreeable) vs. an honest difference of opinion.

Tsk. Tsk. See kettle......





To be fair, I said you were being disagreeable, which is different than saying you are disagreeable.

One is temporary, the other is permanent.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 133 - 238
Robert Timsah
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 7:25pm Report to Moderator
New


Story Is Structure

Posts
291
Posts Per Day
0.06

Quoted from Andrew


I donÔŅĹt personally subscribe to the Trump accusations of a stolen election.

However, I find it beyond frustrating that those who complain about it most are the same people most loudly claiming Russia stole the election 4 years before.

The hypocrisy is simply too much to bear.

Both sides of this issue are complicit in undermining the integrity of democracy, in my view.

Now it may be one or both are correct, but neither have been able to prove it, and like to use it to throw red meat to the base.


From Russia Gate we spin off to election gate.

From election gate, we spin off to Insurrection gate.

From insurrection gate, we spin off toward Alien gate.

Up and until the media becomes an actual arbiter for truth and drops the agenda, this kind of double standard b.s. will only further worsen our divide. It's possible the country just finally breaks up into two separate countries. Oddly enough, when I mention this, the left drools. It might be the only thing we agree on.

One of the more interesting data points was in Michigan where the vote stuffing resulted in the libertarian candidate getting more votes than they should have. It was funny, because the way it worked was - How do you stuff for Biden without Trump also getting more votes? Give it to the Libertarian so it's not so obvious. LOL! Oooops.

But the shenanigans were wide-reaching and varying in the techniques used and often dependent upon the laws within each state. I think some of the Dominion stuff was nonsense. It was about the unfolded paper ballots. Georgia had a large chunk of never-folded "mail in ballots". How do you mail a huge ballot without folding it, yall? LOL - I think that was where they said there was a "leak" haha, this shit cracks me up.

They rigged it for sleepy Joe. I hope the audits find stuff so bad the FBI/CIA has to say the Russians hacked the audit. You know it's coming.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 134 - 238
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    General Chat  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006