u/WallCautious9650

crossover merited bc its Chris Ryan

I keep seeing a particular style of activist language on social media, and I’m curious whether there’s an established term for it. It has a very recognizable vocabulary and sentence structure, but I’m not sure what to call it.

For example, phrases like:

“Normalize speaking out against patriarchal organizations in order to undermine systems of oppression and re-center intersectional voices"

“Late-stage capitalism is a tool against the proletariat and we need to be talking about it.”

“We need to hold space for marginalized voices and unpack the ways our own privilege causes harm.”

I’m less interested in the political ideas themselves than in the style of language: “normalize X,” “holding space,” “centering voices,” “doing the work,” “systems of oppression,” etc.

Is there an academic, sociological, or rhetorical term for this particular style of communication?

Now that all the episodes of A Killer Story on HBO are out, what did everyone think of the series as a whole?

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, the series is about the 2002 murders of Mike Sisco and Karen Harkness in Topeka, Kansas, and the case against Sisco’s ex-wife, Dana Chandler, who was eventually convicted of the murders. But it also spends a lot of time with the investigators, prosecutors, family members, and other people who became wrapped up in the case.

I thought it was pretty compelling, especially in how much the story changed depending on whose perspective you were getting. But I also came away with a lot of questions.

My main takeaways:

• Dana Chandler should not have been convicted based on the evidence presented at trial. To me, they did not prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The prosecution and police came across as shady as hell, and I have serious questions about Jeff Sutton as well.

Some questions I still have:

• Why did Dana Chandler fire her lawyers?
• If Chandler did commit the murders, how did she, a recovering alcoholic with no firearms training, land all her shots and leave no evidence placing her in Topeka?
• A hair was found attached/singed to one of the 9mm shell casings at the murder scene. DNA testing excluded Chandler, both victims, and eventually Jeff Sutton. So presumably the hair came from an unidentified person. Why wasn’t that DNA profile ever run through CODIS?
• Is Jeff Sutton a reasonable alternative suspect? He certainly came across as someone worth looking at more closely in his interview, and I do think there are questions about possible motive.

Curious what everyone else came away thinking after seeing the whole thing.

Now that all the episodes of A Killer Story on HBO are out, what did everyone think of the series as a whole?

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, the series is about the 2002 murders of Mike Sisco and Karen Harkness in Topeka, Kansas, and the case against Sisco’s ex-wife, Dana Chandler, who was eventually convicted of the murders. But it also spends a lot of time with the investigators, prosecutors, family members, and other people who became wrapped up in the case.

I thought it was pretty compelling, especially in how much the story changed depending on whose perspective you were getting. But I also came away with a lot of questions.

My main takeaways:

• Dana Chandler should not have been convicted based on the evidence presented at trial. To me, they did not prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The prosecution and police came across as shady as hell, and I have serious questions about Jeff Sutton as well.

Some questions I still have:

• Why did Dana Chandler fire her lawyers?
• If Chandler did commit the murders, how did she, a recovering alcoholic with no firearms training, land all her shots and leave no evidence placing her in Topeka?
• A hair was found attached/singed to one of the 9mm shell casings at the murder scene. DNA testing excluded Chandler, both victims, and eventually Jeff Sutton. So presumably the hair came from an unidentified person. Why wasn’t that DNA profile ever run through CODIS?
• Is Jeff Sutton a reasonable alternative suspect? He certainly came across as someone worth looking at more closely in his interview, and I do think there are questions about possible motive.

Curious what everyone else came away thinking after seeing the whole thing.

When he wrote on Pete Holmes’ show and seemed to be really in that space, I always took him for a bookish, nerdy type of comedian, in a good way. He seemed more like someone who’d be adjacent to the alt-comedy/LA scene than the whole Rogan universe. So I was surprised to see him move to Austin and get in tight with Rogan. Not necessarily saying that as a criticism. I just wouldn’t have predicted that trajectory for him at all.

I’m kind of surprised by the reviews for this. I didn’t hate Buddy, and there’s a lot about the concept and production design that I liked, but I thought the pacing was really bad.

What’s strange is that it’s only about 95 minutes long, but it felt much, much longer to me.

The opening establishes the children’s-show parody pretty quickly, but then the movie keeps returning to variations on essentially the same joke. I kept waiting for it to move on.

Then once it does start expanding the world, the pacing becomes even more uneven. ISome sections drag while other developments happen surprisingly quickly. I’m not convinced there’s enough here to sustain a feature.

There are individual scenes and ideas I really liked, but for a movie this short, I was shocked by how often I found myself checking the time.

Anyone else feel this way?