FriendOfDeSoto

I think “projection” works. I thought of “external attribution” as well when I read this question.

I’m not an expert. I suppose the internet would be a mess of unexpected holes for a while. But since I don’t know anything more productive than that I just wanted to ask: are you writing the next Bond movie script?

I think several factors play into its lasting popularity.

1. The series was written and first made into movies at a different time. A time when being a misogynists alpha male was aspirational for many, many more men. The unexpected success of the first movies created the foundation to an intellectual property that generations of mostly fathers introduced to their mostly sons. It never went away. Even in years where lawsuits prevented making new movies or when the latest installment of the franchise was considered controversial for whatever reason, the popularity stayed high. And the older the series gets, the more controversial everything becomes.

2. Very few movies have what I would call a great coherent plot. They are going through checklists: we need a bonkers villain, a weird henchperson, a fancy car, at least one love interest, a gadget, a plan for world domination, and a witty line or two. Throw in a location in the Caribbean or the snowy Alps and that’s the formula. It’s Batman from MI-6 in London, really. It’s a comic book story that tries to seem somewhat realistic, in each movie’s release year’s contemporary time. And the more time passes the less jarring the obvious differences to reality become, and the more they are enjoyable as “leave your brain at the door”-popcorn-eating entertainment. Also, I think, the fact that many actors have played different roles over the years, sometimes overlapping with other cast changes, mostly unaddressed in the films why that happened, added to this “brain at the door”-ishness.

3. They’ve gone with the time - to an extent. Where Sean Connery bedded every (young) woman he met and discarded them with a pad on the butt saying things like “man talk,” Daniel Craig’s lady conquest numbers were much lower and the sex less gratuitous - within the formula. Pierce Brosnan’s Bond was called a misogynist pig by his female boss. Under the stewardship of Broccoli/Wilson, the second generation in charge of the franchise, they have incrementally changed the formula.

4. Because the series is so long lasting, there is tons of free publicity in the media, e.g. who will be the next Bond? Will be be less sexist? Will the female lead be more than a conquest? They don’t really need to buy ads for this. Also, there are plenty of companies willing to product place for a hefty price. If there ever was a time when the makers were considering if this was still of the time, the economic interests will surely push those progressive thoughts aside.

I think that if we lived in a world where the Ian Fleming idea had not been adapted into film during the early years of the cold war, nobody would greenlight this project today. And it is its entrenchment in popular culture that keeps it going.

The appeal is definitely more male but I know women who like Bond movies as well. I know this is very stereotypical: men look at the Aston Martin, the gadgets, and the boobs, women at the dresses, the pretty scenery, and how well the Bond girl stands up for herself. And while I’m sure that a subgroup of men looks at the Bond character as a role model, I would say the majority knows this is fiction and just a tad less comic-bookish than Ironman. It’s the male version of a cheap romance novel on a silver screen with more mass appeal.

If this has not become clear from this dissertation: I’m a fan. I can enjoy these movies without wanting to revert to 1960s gender role models. I also know it’s not for everyone.

I think you maybe be extrapolating here from too tiny a dataset. Type “tongue out selfie” into the search engine of your choice and be amazed at how many people have written dissertations on the subject. The simplified take is it started with teenage girls and spread from there.

Names in particular are under no obligation to follow established or common spelling or pronunciation patterns. A simple search on the engine of your choosing would’ve told ya that’s the way it is pronounced. It is, of course, unusual. But they’re doing it as close to right as they can for Ralph.

My crystal ball tells me she will not be part of the next government. I think very few of the current SPD ministers will be. Possibly none of them. The stink of the past, failed coalition “Ampel” government will keep them out.

As I said before, it’s too early to despair, there is potential for surprises, and we should keep an eye on it.

For my answer I’m going to assume - because it wasn’t all that clear to me - that you are also female and you’ll be teaching somewhere in the United States of America. If I’m mistaken, stop reading here.

Kids don’t care. If you tell them this person loves that person and that’s why they’re together, that generally settles that. The problem here is their parents or other influential grownups in their lives … if they’re a-holes or just always have something negative to say about LGBT+, or worse. If news filters through to them and they’re fond of the MAGA hat, I would not be surprised if at the very least you’d be heavily discussed in a text thread of like minded parents.

I would like to say “eff it, it’s 2025, you do you! Shout it from the rooftops. You have nothing to fear in reprisals.” But I’m thinking “sh!t, it’s 2025 in America, there is a chance that you will have to deal with a ton of it if you’re unlucky.” So the question becomes one of your inner fortitude: do you think you can do this job while facing sh!t every day? This ranges from hushed chatter to outright questioning and condemning you for your identity, from kids to parents and possibly to the faculty? Do you want to risk putting quite a heavy load on your shoulders on top of what teachers carry in general? If you say yes, or you can find other work when it gets too much, go for it. If not, I’d be cautious to make it about you. You can talk in general about how relationships are described in Spanish without casually mentioning where you stand.

Personally, I want all of us to live in a world where any of these considerations seem laughable. My gut feeling tells me that we have been closer to that ideal in the past decade than we are today.

True. But the social democrats are the only feasible way to a majority for Merz right now without the help of Nazis. There is at least potential strength in that. Plus the SPD know about their past. They’ll have to find a way to strengthen their party’s position in government somehow. They may surprise us with the spontaneous growth of a backbone in this area, under new leadership. All I’m saying is the die is not cast yet.

You can consider yourself anything you like. Time is relative. I’m older than you and would say 24 is young. A nineteen year old might look at you as an antique. The trick is to know your audience. Don’t openly call yourself young if you’re among the elders in the room.

I think the simplest answer is that we humans can hold two contradictory opinions at the same time. There are people who can support free speech and then censor books willy nilly. There are people who believe strongly in a religion but brazenly violate its rules of conduct on the regular. There are people who know homophobia is wrong but still are homophobic. And if this man has the hots for you at the same time this may be his way of squaring that circle.

I don’t know you. I don’t know him. Insert heaps of salt here. This doesn’t sound like a good friendship to pursue.

Party manifestos are dreamy wishlists for a parliament, in which they have the absolute majority. Merz’s CDU tories did not win one. He’ll need to form a coalition. Most likely outcome is one with the SPD social democrats. Coalition talks have a way of grinding these wishlists down. And they take time. So keep a watchful eye but it’s too early to despair.

I’m not surprised why big companies no matter what morals they claim(ed) to follow still do business like nothing happened. As long as they can strive for profits and shareholder value they will. Big business is the last place one should look for any sort of backbone.

I’m also surprised why there hasn’t been more of an impact on the stock market. I wouldn’t have expected an immediate drop of 50% or some catastrophic decrease like that. That’s because a lot of the incredibly smart economic policies from stable genius will take time to cut into bottom lines. First prices continue to go up for US consumers, spending will go down, unemployment numbers will go up, and then possibly a recession. Which he will blame on Greenland, I suppose.

Stock markets are legal gambling. As long as the gamblers still have hope they will play. Most will play without hope as well. And Trump 45 was good for them so hope is still very much alive.

At the same time, chainsaw wielding deregulation will help businesses in the US. It may not be great for consumers or the environment but tax breaks are great if you can get them. Melon Usk is not bulldozing any sort of oversight for his business interests or the IRS for no reason.

As for uprooting security alliances I think we will see a move away from US manufactured defense goods pretty soon, maybe starting next year. Europe will concentrate on its own industry more than ever. Even if they don’t find a common position to take in regards to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, they will all look to increase spending locally rather than transatlantically, having hopefully learned that reliance on Washington is futile.

Defense contacts are harder to get rid of than a Tesla though, these things take even longer to show up on Wall Street. I mention Tesla though because numbers came out recently in France and Germany that showed a dramatic drop in new car registrations. I think this development on the micro level will eventually reach macro proportions as well. I am personally waiting for pitchforks being sharpened in Usk’s boardrooms because his doge antics and political statements cut into their bonuses.

Statistics can be interpreted differently. The following numbers are all rounded back of the envelope math: approximately 77 million people voted for Trump. About 74 million for Harris. Combined they are about 151 million and they represent about 64% of all people who could’ve cast a ballot. So 100% is about 236 million people eligible to vote. So 236m-151m=85 million didn’t bother. You could add this to either total for the candidates and say the majority didn’t vote for the opponent. Because not casting their ballot for whatever reason can also be seen as voicing an opinion. It’s a bit of statistical gymnastics if you want to make a point, albeit not a good one.

Making the vote mandatory is a philosophical question. In Australia it is mandatory. But in most countries that have elections that deserve to be called that it is not. If you interpret freedom to mean you’re also free not to go and vote you cannot make it mandatory. I agree with you that everyone who is eligible should go and vote. But I also believe the choice should be up to the individual. So we should find ways to motivate eligible voters to make use of their (fixed typo) right. With regards to children I’m not sure it’s a great idea. If they’re very young they may just double the tally that their parents add to. In Europe, some countries lowered the age in some elections to 16, which I think is okay. But I wouldn’t go lower than that.

I think people have complained about casting choices forever. The first female Hamlet must have gotten some negative press as well. I believe the pattern you see is based on two factors:

1. We all carry a media device with us. We are quick to respond and post stuff publicly and in return we get to read other people’s thoughts. What would’ve taken a couple of weeks to spread to enough people to make a dent in any poll in the age of newspapers can take a day or so now. So the speed has picked up. Also, the stuff our media devices serve us depend to varying extents on the use of algorithms. We know that especially in the realm of social media, user engagement is strongest with stuff that riles us up. So the old algo serves us more of that. Algorithms distort the picture. Things are labeled as viral when they are viewed by thousands of people - on a planet of 7 billion or thereabouts. Storms on the internet tend to be teacup size most of the time. The internet gives us a distorted picture where a small number of people can pretend to be a significant portion of society. And that doesn’t mean the Illuminati control this sinisterly; it can just be a few d-heads who think alike that start stirring the teacup. But PR agencies exist to make use of this as well.
2. Politics and society are not on a linear trajectory to paradise. While overall we’re better off as a species than 1,000 years ago, the way stuff moves is often 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. One could say, the US (as one example of many countries today) has just taken two steps back. A political movement that we thought was done for after we have all seen where it can lead is back: right-wing populism. It is a backlash to well intentioned political decisions with regard to equality, the eradication of racism, allowing women autonomy over their own bodies, etc. A lot of people had differing opinions about these things but social norms had confined them to family gatherings and the pub where they could voice them but not much more than that. Now they can voice them online as well and find many other dissenters they wouldn’t have found as easily just 30 years ago. And because they feel like a majority (see 1)) or a significant portion at the very least they become more outspoken. Saying the quiet parts out loud. So talking badly about people of another ethnicity, women, etc. is en vogue again. So any opportunity for that is good enough.

So Star Wars is casting a non-binary person to lead a new show? “Fans are outraged!” The new 007 is a black woman? “Fans are up in arms!” These have become predictable reactions that gain traction in for-profit media that also needs us to engage so they can sell ads. So is this a pattern? Yes. Is it new though? I don’t think so. It’s just accelerated, amplified, fueled by politics, and more often than not a storm in a teacup.

Before I finish this essay, I would like to point out two examples that popped into my head that go against the grain. Scarlet Johansson’s casting in Ghost in the Shell caused a stir. And about a decade earlier Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan from Star Trek was also met with criticism.