491–500 of 514 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe for people in the US. Internationally? I haven't watched a single episode of WTR, I don't know anyone who has, but everyone knows who Chuck Norris was.
I loved WTR as a child in Spain! (This was like 15 years ago tho)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lot of words to say "I prefer to ignore the evil that men do if I find them entertaining enough, and I think it's silly that anyone does otherwise." The Chuck Norris you admire is a figment of your imagination. He was a product created by capitalism. He never actually fought Bruce Lee. He was never really a Texas Ranger. He was never in the real Delta Force. Putting him on the same cultural level as actual l…
Reading this thread has definitely sheared off a few of my brain cells seeing people so collectively deluded about Chuck Norris. As you said he was a totality of capitalism, a product wrapped in human skin. He's only truly notable for the jokes people made (myself included) at the dawn of the early internet. As a person, what he actually accomplished is nothing at best and at worst actively damaging to multiple group…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was extremely popular in Russian-speaking areas in the late 90s.
Yes! Oldfagi remember. Also, he was just called "Cool Walker", which was appropriate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And what did he do? Try and shut it down and start suing people. Stupid. Isn't that an obligation when you own a trademark? That you sue people, or else you may lose the trademark?
> Isn't that an obligation when you own a trademark? That you sue people, or else you may lose the trademark? It's not quite as cut and dry as you suggest. Besides, in which way was a trademark being violated? Last I knew merely talking about and referencing a celebrity by name was not a trademark violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hn not reddit, do you really expect a response to your whataboutism?
His reply was not whataboutism; it was a legitimate and direct retort to your post that exposes that what you asserted was false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the sentiment. My point was more people used to have a common understanding that there was a time and place for political (and religious) discussion - and that those beliefs were deeply personal, shaped largely by experience, and not meant to be held against one another in the broader judgement of their character. Somewhere along the way we lost that idea, not all cultural changes are for the better.
I see, so from this reply I gather that your parent post was not “just an expression” as you claimed elsewhere, and you just got snippy when someone pushed back against your obviously out-of-touch assertion of fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the sentiment. My point was more people used to have a common understanding that there was a time and place for political (and religious) discussion - and that those beliefs were deeply personal, shaped largely by experience, and not meant to be held against one another in the broader judgement of their character. Somewhere along the way we lost that idea, not all cultural changes are for the better.
> not meant to be held against one another in the broader judgement of their character Really? When was that time? 1000 BC?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hn not reddit, do you really expect a response to your whataboutism?
"Whataboutism" is just asking you to validate your claims, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't that an obligation when you own a trademark? That you sue people, or else you may lose the trademark? It's not quite as cut and dry as you suggest. Besides, in which way was a trademark being violated? Last I knew merely talking about and referencing a celebrity by name was not a trademark violation.
Is it trademark, or IP. If someone made a list of Mickey Mouse jokes, Disney's law department will send them a letter too. Chuck Norris is a person/name but also a persona.