Sure, but you could say the same of Luigi Mangione and that isn’t slowing anyone down.

I mean, I would say you shouldn’t make him your hero either. Even if you think what he did was heroic, lone gunman assassins usually don’t turn out to be very stable, well adjusted people. Hell, Ted Kacynski has some good points about post-Industrial life, but that doesn’t mean he should be your hero.

I might suggest that if Glenn had ended up on MSNBC rather than the gutter for FOX News washouts, he’d be denouncing Snowden today rather than praising him.

Very possible, and nearly as disappointing. My point isn’t that he changed or became worse, just that I projected more of my ideals onto him than he actually shared.

I don’t think you can criticize Snowden because the guy who interviewed him ended up becoming a crank.

To be clear, I’m not. I’m saying that he has some views and beliefs that may lead him to disappoint you in the future. He mostly doesn’t comment much on politics outside of the surveillance state, but he has described himself as a libertarian, and said that he believes social security is a scam that needs to die. It seems clear that he is anti-authoritarian, but it’s very possible that, if he ever became more vocal about American politics, you’d learn a lot about him that would disappoint you.

What Snowden did was objectively good, and he did so at great personal cost, but you should be cautious about making any living person your hero. His politics seem to lean closer to libertarian nut-job than anything else, and it’s very possible he will disappoint you in the future. Case in point, Glen Greenwald broke the Snowden leaks, and I considered him one of my heros for a time,.but these days he sounds more like Tucker Carlson than anyone else. The point is, admire heroic actions, but don’t make people your heroes.

Read the room, Yahoo Scout.

Yeah, they learned that capitulation isn’t profitable when they fired Jimmy Kimmel and everyone canceled their Disney+ subscription. From then on, they decided to stand up for free speech until their dying breath (or until the cost/benefit shifts and the harassment from the FCC costs them more than the blowback from collaborating with the regime).

That makes sense. I know he didn’t write the movie, but I assumed that he had a lot of input on the monster design. He always has a lot of input on the monster design.

Honestly, I remember similar vamp lore dragging down the first one. There some interesting stuff with Frost being lower class because he was turned Vamp instead of born Vamp, but the third-act vampire-god thing was kinda meh, ending with some horribly dated CGI.

Also, while the world building was cool, it’s not as though Blade is a super interesting character. He’s a super cool bad-ass, but I find myself checking out when they get into his emotional backstory. Whistler id mich more of the emotional core of fhat movie, which is probably why they had to bring him back in the second (which ie something in fhe second movie that I thought was a cheap cop-out).

Yeah, I thought that was the general consensus too, but I couldn’t be sure that wasn’t just an echo chamber I’d created with my friend group.

I actually thought 4 was better than 2 and 3. Not that 4 was very good, but I thought 2 and 3 suffered from an attempt to, “trilogize,” the series and make it a grand epic. It was clear by the end of the third movie that they didn’t know where they were going with all of the plot threads they’d set up like Calypso, the Brethren Court, the Jack/Elizabeth/Will love triangle they were hinting at…just way to many ideas and very little payoff. At least 4 told a coherent story in one movie, even if it wasn’t a very good story.

I would argue that Blade II is the better movie. Guillermo del Toro is a much more interesting director, and the Reapers are basically a dry run for his take on Vampires in The Strain.

You might be able to get the point of the show across in 30 seconds, but it’s hard to set the vibe. Think about how much atmosphere Batman: TAS built in the minute-plus intro. Besides, it’s not like that time is going towards the episode length; TV shows have gone from 24 minutes in the late 80s/early 90s to 21 minutes in the 2000s, and all that extra time went to commercials. It would be nice if they could at least give 30 seconds back towards a good theme song.

These answers are a testament to how much better theme songs were before the 2000s, especially for kids shows. You used to get a minute and a half of hype music to introduce new viewers to the show or psych up returning viewers. Now, even the best ones, like Gravity Falls, are less then 40 seconds.

This is probably the correct answer. I don’t particularly like or dislike Cheers, and it went off the air when I was five, but even as a child, that theme song gave me a deep, nostalgic yearning for something I cannot articulate.

The extended version is a fucking banger. Guy makes duck sounds with his guitar. Hendrix might have been able to make a guitar sing, but I never heard him make it quack.

“When I agreed to work for a well known techno-facist to develop exactly the kind of surveillance tool a facist state would kill for, I had no idea this would descend into fascism!”

Really struggling to understand why they thought, “giant spying program indiscriminately gathering data on everyone in the wold,” was ever a good thing.

Here the original sketch.

His passport was cancelled less than 24 hours before his arrival in Russia. Either he was already in transit when the passport was cancelled, the Hong Kong government was not aware of the cancellation when they let him leave, or Hong Kong fudged the paperwork because they were getting heavy pressure from the U.S. to extradite Snowden and they wanted him gone. To my knowledge, it’s still unclear which of those is true, but in any case, he says he was headed to Ecuador, he had Ecuadorian emergency travel documents, and other famous leakers like Assange have gone to Ecuador for aid, so there’s really no reason to doubt that claim.

“Give any evidence that what you said about Snowden aiding Russia is true.”

“I will only discuss how you are a big lair that hurt my feelings.”

Anyway, I’m done here, but thanks for the Dunning-Kruger demonstration.

Then correct me. Back up any of the claim that Snowden, "gave the NSA’s tools of influence and power over the internet to Russia,’ with a single source that actually says that. Or even just explain in your own words what you think Snowden did to help the Russians.

Ill be blunt; Trump’s NSPM-7 instructs intelligence agencies to treat dissenting Americans as domestic terrorists and Congress is currently trying to extend the FISA authorization that let’s intelligence communities gather their data. The very thing that Snowden was trying to warn us about is currently happening, right now, as we speak, under Trump. So I don’t have a lot of patience for conspiracy theories about Snowden and Russian influence campaigns.

Well, it’s not the first time I’ve seen this. A lot of the, “but her emails,” crowd weren’t paying attention to the Snowden leaks because it happened under Obama. They conflate Manning, Snowden, and Assange. They don’t know the difference between Wikileaks and the Snowden disclosures. They just remember, “Snowden, hacker, leaks, Russia,” and assume it has something to do wirh Wikileaks publishing the DNC emails that Russia hacked. It’s especially pissing me off right now, given that Congress is trying to quietly pass an extension of FISA, and even though it gives Trump a massive domestic spying tool, there is a bipartisan effort to get it through.