This is topic old man blogs at cloud in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=059679

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Maybe there's some movie that everybody loves. Please tell me it's not the revenge movie Godfather. I'd be so ashamed if that were our national icon.
is the godfather a "revenge movie"
 
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
 
I'm confused about what this is?
 
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
 
Nevermind. I checked OSC's blog post and sure enough, it was there.

So I'm surprised he didn't mention Star Wars. I personally didn't like the Godfather Trilogy, but I really enjoyed Star Wars. I think most Americans did, too.

Regardless, not everyone can agree one a piece of art or its value. To expect such a thing is silly. Not everyone back in the day agreed that a poem or poet was good, either. Some people just didn't like poetry at all.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Maybe there's some movie that everybody loves. Please tell me it's not the revenge movie Godfather. I'd be so ashamed if that were our national icon.
is the godfather a "revenge movie"
Sorta right? His father is attacked, and he grabs the reigns and goes after his attackers.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
While I don't think it could be called just one type of movie (epic-length stories rarely are), surely among the top things Godfather would be called is a revenge movie. Most of the film centers on either acquiring power and its consequences-which is then used for revenge among other things-or the fallout from using power to take revenge.
 
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff C.:

Regardless, not everyone can agree one a piece of art or its value. To expect such a thing is silly. Not everyone back in the day agreed that a poem or poet was good, either. Some people just didn't like poetry at all.

True but with most things, all-time best lists do tend to come to some general consensus about many works or artists. For instance, most everyone knows that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are the big three of classical music. They may not be your favorites but most people still put them at the top. Nearly all greatest scifi lists have Ender's Game on it. Greatest movie lists almost always include Godfather I and II.

One area that seems to have very little consensus is best ever romance novel lists. Take a look at them sometime. Out of ten lists there is one book you might see 3 times, the rest are all different.

Don't ask me why I know this [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
"The Godfather" is as much about revenge as "Hamlet" was, and doesn't OSC always go on about how much he loves Shakespeare.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
You can argue that The Godfather is a revenge movie in the same way you can argue The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a revenge movie. It involves play-by-payback — the plot advances because of retaliatory acts — and finishes with some satisfying revenge, of a sort (tense but ultimately comical, in the case of Tuco). But that the movie built up to, effectively, a moment of sheer revenge was not the point. Neither movie was principally about revenge.

Nor do we have to be ashamed if Godfather is our national cinematic icon (it's not). I mean, it's only one of the greatest movies ever made. oh darn??
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Hyperbole and a Half feels real, though of course the title proclaims that it is an exaggeration. And even though it's aimed at women in particular
no it's not
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Speaking of Christmas songs, have you noticed how "Jolly Old St. Nicholas" has been bowdlerized, presumably to please feminists?
presumably an unlicensed old song primarily used in a hypercommercialized winter event has been modified because feminazis are oppressing us with hyper-pc culture. Or something. Well it is a good thing that this is presumed with some sort of evidence right because otherwise it's a loaded dullard's charge

right

evidence, right
 
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
 
OSC needs to stop saying whatever comes into his head :/
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
You can argue that The Godfather is a revenge movie in the same way you can argue The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a revenge movie. It involves play-by-payback — the plot advances because of retaliatory acts — and finishes with some satisfying revenge, of a sort (tense but ultimately comical, in the case of Tuco). But that the movie built up to, effectively, a moment of sheer revenge was not the point. Neither movie was principally about revenge.

Nor do we have to be ashamed if Godfather is our national cinematic icon (it's not). I mean, it's only one of the greatest movies ever made. oh darn??

It's a fantastic film, almost revolutionary in that it was an attempt to take people who were stock bad guys and actually look at them under the microscope while telling a compelling human story. It's one of the things that helped make American cinema an art form.

That said, if I could only choose one film to represent America to an outsider, it would *not* be that one. It's not a good representation of an American film, seeing as how the characters themselves identify as Sicilian or Italian first and foremost. But then again, that's about par the course for any 1st-2nd generation Americans.

I don't know which film I'd choose in lieu of it.

What about you guys?
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Hyperbole and a Half feels real, though of course the title proclaims that it is an exaggeration. And even though it's aimed at women in particular
no it's not
Clearly it's because the main character is a female person wearing a pink dress.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
grabs the reigns
He does nothing of the sort; in fact, since a reign is not a material object it cannot be grabbed. The word you want is 'reins'.

Reign: The period in which a monarch rules; "Queen Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to her death in 1603".

Rein: Strap attached to a horse's bridle, enabling the rider to pull on it to indicate direction or speed. "He pulled on the reins, but the horse had the bit in its teeth and ignored him." Also used metaphorically to indicate control; "he took over the reins".

Rain: Water falling from the sky. "He's too dumb to come in out of the rain."

Reyne: Fictional family from GRRM's Game of Thrones. "And now the rains weep o'er his hall and not a soul to hear."
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Clearly it's because the main character is a female person wearing a pink dress.

remember when he complained, in a world where the majority of all movies fail the Bechdel test, that Meridia's father wasn't important enough in the movie Brave, and that this was emblematic of that the 'gospel of feminists' is that fathers are to be avoided at all costs

yeap
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Is the title of this thread self-referential?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
grabs the reigns
He does nothing of the sort; in fact, since a reign is not a material object it cannot be grabbed. The word you want is 'reins'.

Reign: The period in which a monarch rules; "Queen Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to her death in 1603".

Rein: Strap attached to a horse's bridle, enabling the rider to pull on it to indicate direction or speed. "He pulled on the reins, but the horse had the bit in its teeth and ignored him." Also used metaphorically to indicate control; "he took over the reins".

Rain: Water falling from the sky. "He's too dumb to come in out of the rain."

Reyne: Fictional family from GRRM's Game of Thrones. "And now the rains weep o'er his hall and not a soul to hear."

Oh I'm sorry, I left out a few words.

"His father is attacked, and he grabs a planted gun, and blows the brains out of three men, and after that he reigns."
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Is the title of this thread self-referential?

noap
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Is the title of this thread self-referential?

noap
Oh. You do seem a little like an angry old man shaking your fist at the vicissitudes of ephemera, though. I'm not sure why you feel the need to run-down OSC's views, especially ones as benign and relatively minor as these.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I think it helps having put into word form why the review is bad.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
As opposed to charades or blinking out morse code?
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Sam is like our Ebert when it comes to OSC.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Is the title of this thread self-referential?

noap
Oh. You do seem a little like an angry old man shaking your fist at the vicissitudes of ephemera, though. I'm not sure why you feel the need to run-down OSC's views, especially ones as benign and relatively minor as these.
hahahahaha, very well.

i was reading the latest orson scott card™ article by orson scott card — like ya do — and it struck me that they are often filled with little bizarre oddities that make me think "wait why does he .. think that"

normally these little oddities end up getting passed by because they have a tendency to be massively overshadowed by that point or points where he shoots straight past this, as you say, benign and relatively minor — into the certainly nonbenign, non-minor, and yes all those things he is now permanently infamous for. We can still discuss those, too. An excellent article came out recently discussing card from honestly as sympathetic a position as he can hope to deserve, and analyzing the tragedy of his malign word and deed against homosexuals. we can have this discussion concurrent to the purposefully trivial bits like his take on allie brosh's book.

but this time as a poster on this orson scott card™ forum i figured i would thread it because this is a forum full of people who follow card so why not. chiefly this time around one weird thing he said provoked an internal discussion (or viccisitudining of ephemerapodes or whatever) as i was surprised to have him classify the godfather as a 'revenge movie' and i started thinking about it and imagined a good back and forth on that one so i posted a thread about it and by extension all the little oddities of his postings, because i'm a rebel and i do what i want and i live by my own rules and back home they call me a revolutionary kinda guy, like once i put mayo on a hotdog, because i'm a lawbreaker and a rebel spirit, that's just how i roll, aint no box can hold me in, or make me cut my hair before the family reunion.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
actually instead of charades or morse code, I think my posts should be in semaphore

quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
Sam is like our Ebert when it comes to OSC.

video games are not and will likely never be art.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
...i started thinking about it and imagined a good back and forth on that one so i posted a thread about it and by extension all the little oddities of his postings...

But what you did was make a thread where you mocked him for three minor oddities, rather than inviting discussion. That there has been some back and forth is largely due to other posters; it seems to me that your contribution (other than opening the thread) was pretty much limited to bile and petty denigration.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
But what you did was make a thread where you mocked him for three minor oddities, rather than inviting discussion.
if the first post in the thread hadn't been literally exactly just a question about the thing i wanted discussed (which was then discussed) i would entertain this notion.

instead, i should say my imagining there would be a back and forth on that one was a pretty accurate imagining so far! i could ask you, directly, the same thing! do you think that the Godfather is accurately or best represented as a "revenge movie!" would you be ashamed if it as a movie was 'our national cinematic icon' as opposed to perhaps just being considered a national cinematic icon. my contribution is obviously not limited to 'bile and petty denigration' and i am obviously inviting discussion as you can see in my previous post to you where I do genuinely say we can have your discussions too! this having discussions thing is obviously the best.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Here's what I took from your posts in this thread, prior to my initial post:

1) Is The Godfather a revenge movie?
2) No, it's not; only superficial thinking would make you think it was. Also, OSC is silly for fretting about whether it's a symbol of American culture and ethos.
3) Also, OSC is a sexist and doesn't get Allie Brosh or her audience.
4) OSC is stupid and a sexist.
5) Remember that OSC is a sexist.

Maybe that wasn't you meant for your posts to communicate, and maybe I'm being insufficiently charitable and a different observer would draw different messages from your posts, but to me your contributions seem intended not to generate discussion, but to make fun of OSC for writing things you thought were silly and wrong. To me, it seems like you're just being ornery, directing mean-spirited invective toward an object that won't hear you and is never going to engage you back.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
first! you may want to reread my second post, i haven't even decided whether you can call a movie a revenge movie when, critically analyzed, revenge isn't the overall point of it. obviously the godfather contains revenge of the most capital sort in an epic violent crescendo at the end. obviously i have an opinion to add to the discussion! my opinion does not claim that thinking that the movie is a revenge movie only possibly the result of superficial thinking.

second! there's plenty of stuff that osc says which is silly and wrong in a not exactly trivial manner. i am totally fine mocking that. i know that lolling at his off-kilter rants at [liberals feminists global warmists the shadow government black army of black hoodlums the leftaliban gay marriagists etc] is towards an object that won't hear me and is never going to engage me back obviously. i have no illusions of making osc a better person from mentioning things he says on a forum he doesn't read anymore, and he's certainly made his bed in terms of what i'm going to poke fun at here. his crap about feminists in this latest article is a perfect example of that, in that "oh boy, here goes old uncle orson again" fashion. he conspiracy-itizes the bowdlerization of a heavily commercially co-opted christmas song, baldly presuming (for, uh, reasons? presumably?) it as being the work of appeasement for those feminists. shouldn't this hyper-PC culture have known that this song had a feminist spirit already! silly feminists.

i somehow doubt you disagree this is kind of dumb!

anyway. overexplanation phase over
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
well almost over

quote:
Also, OSC is a sexist and doesn't get Allie Brosh or her audience.
like sexist how? there are a lot of different ways to be sexist. he is certainly turgidly anti-feminist but that is because his interpretation of feminists is that it was the feminists who were the sexists all along! but yeah why is he of the opinion that allie's book is primarily geared at women. i do not think that is true of the book. do you?
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Well, I have about 3 chapters left. I haven't read ALL of what's on Hyperbole and a Half, but I can't think of anything on the entire blog that couldn't have been written by someone of either gender.

I will say that the book is primarily geared at people who like dogs. As it happens, I have never had a dog, and don't really like them very much. Some parts were funny, but they were harder to relate to. Maybe OSC meant to say dogs but wrote girls instead.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
well almost over

quote:
Also, OSC is a sexist and doesn't get Allie Brosh or her audience.
like sexist how? there are a lot of different ways to be sexist. he is certainly turgidly anti-feminist but that is because his interpretation of feminists is that it was the feminists who were the sexists all along! but yeah why is he of the opinion that allie's book is primarily geared at women. i do not think that is true of the book. do you?
I've long been of the opinion that OSC's horribly written women characters were a sign that he just doesn't understand women very well, and probably doesn't like them very much. But that it's more about not understanding them, than about finding them inferior.

There's always this thing about women in OSC novels: they're mostly uber-competent, but there's almost always something deeply wrong with them that makes them hate themselves. But then, hey, it is literature.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I don't think Katarina, or Ivan's mother were like that in Enchanted. Of course Baba Yaga was, but then she was the main antagonist.
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
like once i put mayo on a hotdog

Seriously, what is wrong with you.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Well in fairness to the man, I think it can be said that 'something they hate about themselves' is hardly mono-gendered in his work.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
So where exactly is this self esteem generation?

I mean, I'm 24, so I'm pretty sure I'm part of the current generation, or within a few years of it. But I've never seen any of this "everyone gets a prize!" mentality.

I mean, I do remember from about 2nd grade on being in constant competition with my classmates. I was part of a Jeopardy style quiz team in elementary school which was pretty brutal. So was baseball. I remember running until I threw up, countless hours at the gym, getting cussed out by my coach after every practice. I remember going to the State championship in Junior High. And you know what never crossed my mind? "Gee! I sure am glad I don't have to try hard at all, because no matter what I get a participation trophy!" If only I had known!

I remember constantly pulling all nighters studying in high school and college, because college is f***cking expensive as hell nowadays and I wouldn't have been able to even go without the scholarship. Too bad I had the scholarship you had to maintain a 3.5 to keep, rather than the special "everyone gets a prize!" scholarship. I would have really liked that.

I remember going to war at 20 years old, and spending months sleeping on the ground, or in the rain. Being eaten alive by mosquitoes, hiking 15, 20 miles with a 100 lb pack, waking up aching so badly that I could barely move. I remember going 4 days with almost no food while hiking 50 miles. I can remember sweating so much that my clothes turned white from the salt.

...Heck, I can remember *today*, I just got off working a 14 hour shift.

But nooo! I'm part of the entitlement generation! I've had everything handed to me on a plate! I think I'm the smartest person in the world, and I have no work ethic!

At least, according to soft, fat old man who looks like he's never worked a day of hard physical labor in his life. Who admits to never actually dedicating the amount of time or effort necessary to be good at sports (and yet still condescendingly criticizes and disparages high school athletics). Who has probably never really been hungry or had to sleep outdoors or even been in actual physical danger in his life.

Well, I'm glad he feels like *he's* so much better than I am, and ought to be lecturing me on hard work and dedication. Jesus Christ, what a pathetic joke.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I'm 27, some of it existed for my generation.

When I was aged 2-3, I took dance classes. At the end of the year we got a trophy. It said that I did dance for a year. My sister got one that said she did dance for two years. Basically if you finished out the year in some sort of sport, there was a banquet at the end of the year and everyone got a trophy. The first few were very exciting. Because I was three. And maybe a few after that later in elementary school, because I didn't do any trophy earning sports again for a while.

I would say that I'm better than the average person at a number of things, most of them involve math or science. However, I have great difficulty telling if complements are real, and I don't think I've actually earned any of the ones I get. It's a recipe for impostor syndrome, an excuse to slack off and if you want to know why people are attracted to jerks, it's because they think the jerks are the honest ones, and they want to impress someone real.

What blows my mind more is that boomers think that the trophy that I received from being dragged to dance classes when I was three makes me think that I, as an adult, am a great person. Um, not particularly.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
The "participation trophy" is an acknowledgement of the fact you spent a year of your life doing something. It has sentimental value, it's something you can take with you to remind you of the past. My desk is covered with such grown up mementos: a rock from the Paria Cayon, a carved box of letters and dried rose petals from an old relationship, glasses and sculptures from various MC balls I've been to, a few bullet casings, pictures, a slingshot, a hat... sentimental items have a lot of power and I think they're essential to a healthy psyche.

This insipid belief that our generation is somehow spoiled or lacks competition because we recieved participation awards is baffling. How stupid do they think we are?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well in fairness to the man, I think it can be said that 'something they hate about themselves' is hardly mono-gendered in his work.

Well yes, this is an author-tract that OSC follows assiduously in both genders.

But what I mean is this: the female characters have something deeply wrong with them, and they tend to repress it and let it fester for a good long while before doing anything about it. Novina, Petra, Abner Doon's lover, et al. There is also a streak of horrible mothers in the mix: Jason's mom, Link's mom, arguably John Paul's mom (she just ignores his genius), etc. A lot of moms being bat**** crazy and having genius sons.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
So where exactly is this self esteem generation?
I mean, I'm 24, so I'm pretty sure I'm part of the current generation, or within a few years of it. But I've never seen any of this "everyone gets a prize!" mentality.

It may be regional, as well as age based. We didn't keep score in youth basketball, for instance, which aside from being a horribly demotivating approach to sports, never worked anyway, because we just kept score on note-cards at the bench anyway. What were they thinking?

But in many ways, this is just a tired "in my day," complaint from an older person who sees diminishing focus on the aspects of his own youth he finds important. While competitiveness for positions in universities stays in place, there's nothing notable there, when at the same time the idea of putting school children in direct competition with each other goes out of fashion for one reason or another.

That can be as much a sign of the class divide in America at work as anything else: our education system now allows the wealthy to continue prodding their own kids to academic success, while systematically de-emphasizing competitiveness for poorer kids that don't receive the same emphasis in their home life. It's the system recognizing that it is increasingly built to cater to the bespoke needs of the rich, rather than the clamor of the poor and upcoming. Economic mobility decreases, and so does the systematic emphasis on skills kids need to be economical mobile.

That's OSC's generation doing this, by the way. It's conservatives who think they should be solely responsible for the success of their own kids, and damn the ones that rely only on the public education system, and don't deserve the same competitive environment as the wealthy provide for themselves.

This has always, and will always be the way- the things you mark as important to your development in your youth are eroded and replaced by other schema with similar results. Nothing really fundamentally changes about how people operate as human beings.

I think the idea of eliminating negative competitive practices is always "just about," to erode some foundation of basic self-confidence for today's youth. Except if you take the long view, the crusading against competitive practices is just always a reaction to competitiveness having increased to dangerous levels already, and the erosion is just supplanting one form of unfair competition with another that is deemed more appropriate for a new generation.

Being a long-term foreigner really helps me to see this process in action. Older folks here (Czech Republic), for example, decry the lack of competitiveness among the youth for the old-generation priorities of prominent placement in state universities and in long-ago prestigious careers like the agricultural ministry, that are now, in the post-communist era, seen as passe or undesirable, and so have to see their competitive entry requirements diminish in the face of less actual competition. The older generation decries the lack of competitive spirit in government work, the olympics, and other Soviet Bloc priorities.

The fact that at the same time, the most competitive kids are learning at least 3 languages in school (as opposed to the 2 their parents learned), and studying international business and economics on a level their parents never imagined when they were in school, is not seen as relevant to the discussion of why fewer people are pursuing decreasingly desirable government work, or decreasingly prestigious forms of athletic competition in favor of newer and more fashionable ones.

This is akin to the idea that America's youth has grown lazy and fails to dream simply because the vogue of the American Automobile has finally, after a century of total dominance, started to dwindle in the modern imagination as the key to class and success. That kids don't want to get their drivers licenses today will *always* be seen as evidence that they are lazier or less motivated than their parents, rather than a sign that they have a new and unfathomed set of economic and social priorities that don't necessarily involve cars.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I would like to add that in certain states, they've made it an expensive, time-intensive pain to get limited license as a high schooler, it's almost not worth it.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
millenials are straight up working their hearts out in a rather screwed post-recovery environment, and should be the ones allowed to talk shit to this relatively coddled earlier set of generations, rather than have to deal with a bunch of doughy self-righteous old people as they smirk and castigate them for being too self-absorbed or lazy. oh maaaaaan, we have too much self-esteem, oh maaaaan.

if y'all an old person talking 'down' to millenials, you're harrumphing at a generation that's more intelligent, fights to keep their head above water in an economic environment that you elders would have blanched bitterly about, deal with more competitive life channels, and have a better work ethic overall and are more entrepreneurial. they do harder work for less in a world where living standard landmarks like home ownership have coasted away to become a distant economic improbability for most, inaccessable to the people who are working even longer and harder than their parents did.

and in return they get a bunch of doddering old farts hemming and hewing about how they're spoiled! entitled! lazy! gorged on self esteem! ugh everyone got a trophy.

this article isn't the worst example of it by far, of course, it hardly even registers in the sea of worse stuff dreamed up about Entitled Millenials, it's just another languorous example of the sort of lazy trendpiece conclusions that article writers make about kids these days, what with their webzones and their not getting off my goddamned lawn. Bohrs wrote this comic before OSC wrote his article, but it might as well be considered an apt response to parts of it:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/opinion/bors-millenial-comic-strip/index.html?hpt=op_t1
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
hmm i put too much thought into that, i really need to remember my commitment to extreeeeeeemely low hanging fruit.

uhh,

quote:
I predict that Blue Orange Games will soon be in every home with children, the way Clue and Sorry! and Careers and Life were when I was a kid.
sure thing dood, check must have cleared

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3-a4qWCtIg
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
The thing that surprised me about that article, wasn't that OSC was schilling for a board game company (he does have reasonable taste in board games), but rather he praised the independent game shops that made distribution possible via a cross country road trip and called for government protection lest no independent board game get made ever again.


... it's called kickstarter.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
but the point about monopolistic smooshing of indie competition was salient and with merit overall. like, even if probably board game shops arguably are in the same realm as vinyl music shops in that they cling to the fringeiest of fringe markets
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I don't disagree that if german boardgames can only be found at retail stores that are Barnes and Noble, then that makes it impossible to sell a game to BN on your own.

However, I think independently invented products are able to take off more easily now than ever before thanks to the internet. They can find buyers before the product exists. I actually went to school both the Goldieblox creator AND one of the Cards Against Humanity (not at the same stages of life, obviously). They're very much normal people (I mean, entitled millennials).

Along the same vein, a 26 year old Brazilian at a Mexican marketing firm invented one of the best-selling video games of the past few years as a side project. It hasn't even been finished yet. Still, people buy it.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
yeah this is not exactly what i would call Indie-starved tunes thanks to the little crowdsourcing reassurance
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Meh. I know spoiled, lazy kids and hard working ones. And Gen Xers. And Boomers. Probably you can't pigeonhole a whole generation.
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Meh. I know spoiled, lazy kids and hard working ones. And Gen Xers. And Boomers. Probably you can't pigeonhole a whole generation.

Yup. My response to claims otherwise by memebers of whatever generational camp is generally to roll my eyes and go about my business.

Which, actually, is fairly standard stereotypical Gen X behavior. :: laugh ::
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
yeah this is not exactly what i would call Indie-starved tunes thanks to the little crowdsourcing reassurance

But that's my point, with the internet you can get the same end result, and sell enough to eventually get major distribution.

Cards against humanity point-blank refuses to be distributed in the USA by anyone but Amazon. My other friends got their CAH set for free from our mutual creator friend after he brought one of the manufacturer's prototypes to a party for us to try before the game came out. He's still a grad student last I heard, btw-- I have no idea if he gets any money from sales-- my understanding is the money goes back into the product, or say, their recent promotion.

A little web research tells me that I can get the blueOrange game "Spot it" shipped to store at Walmart. So, not starving either.

If you troll BoardGameGeek.com, you can find threads where the creator of Pandemic is asking people for feedback on his game and see prototypes. You can get that game at Target now.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Meh. I know spoiled, lazy kids and hard working ones. And Gen Xers. And Boomers. Probably you can't pigeonhole a whole generation.

My generation is the best. Generation after me so lazy and undisciplined! Generation before me so ignorant and stupid. I like read article make point out that other generation do everything wrong. Make me feel better about my own just world fallacy.
 
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
 
There's also the whole thing about millennial being, you know, still pretty young. I think the whole conversation about the work-ethic of millennial is premature.

But, um, yeah. I thought immediately of this thread when I read OSC's review of a year-old article on cracked expressing his agreement with said article and warning his audience about the language.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
I think the whole conversation about the work-ethic of millennial is premature
Maybe. As generations go, the real question is whether we want to call "much more heavily exploited" or "much more exploitable due to circumstances and/or mentalities about work" something akin to having a 'work ethic.' Because people in my age group are, when you look at the data, being squeezed in a way which generates more labor but keeps wealth out of our hands. Jobs lost in the last crash come back as part-time low-wage options, barely paid or unpaid internships, etc.

And, well, apparently we're doing them! And working longer hours. I guess that's either a work ethic, if not exploitability due to controlled labor conditions.
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
I've wondered if the circumstances Sam is talking about will lead to a mainstream re-embrace of socialism down the road a little bit.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:


http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/opinion/bors-millenial-comic-strip/index.html?hpt=op_t1

We didn't show up late and get the crumbs. We showed up late, and were handed the bill, and told to do dishes to pay back the bill at the rate of $7.00 an hour while the bill accrues interest of $8.00 per hour.

But hey, we should just roll up our sleeves and stop whining.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
I've wondered if the circumstances Sam is talking about will lead to a mainstream re-embrace of socialism down the road a little bit.

I certainly think this is true. And have said so quite a few times.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
well the millenials have already 'embraced socialism' by most ways you can envision the phrase's meaning and intent.

when you get to actually see and live how much actually 'trickles down' when the free market has the wherewithal to act primarily in its own interests, when you get to live in a jobless recovery, when the economic reality around you is that the rising tide raises all yachts (and it's such a darn shame you didn't have one)

well let's just say you're not very likely to be a freemarketeer. millenials are actually so frightfully and profoundly liberal that the "mainstream re-embrace of socialism" is .. I wouldn't say 'totally guaranteed' but rather that nobody has come up with a remotely likely scenario unfolding, short of a massive unprecedented national crisis, that doesn't inevitably result in it.
 
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
 
I mean, for what it's worth, most of my friends and I are all in our early twenties. Some are working 50 hours a week between their two/three part-time jobs, and I'm in the opposite extreme, working 24 hours a week with my one part-time job. (Doing music gigs on the side)

In any case, when you've been working 50 hours a week for several years and haven't had a day off in 200 days, it's kind of hard to read the news closely enough to distinguish between actual Socialism and what people on the right have been saying "Socialism" is. If "Socialism" means I can feed my kids and have healthcare, then sure. Socialism sounds great. Let's do it! What are "means of production?"

For my truly socialist friends, this works out pretty well for them. There's no stigma anymore in saying they're socialist, because nobody knows what it means. Lets them lay out the agenda without as much negative bias.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Get out there and vote wouldja? All you almost Socialists. Not just for national elections either. Often those are swayed by the local folks in office. You know. The ones in charge of gerrymandering and voting hours.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
OSC complained about physics inaccuracies in the film Gravity - and yeah, I have no argument. There are some big ones (like the idea that you can aim directly at an object in a trailing orbit and just launch directly for it and travel in a straight inertial line - see Niven's Integral Trees for a more accurate treatment of the physics) and plenty of small ones.

But one of his complaints is that the re-entry vehicle would tumble and burn up if it didn't hit the atmosphere at the right attitude.

quote:
Only all of a sudden, another bit of magic! Without fuel, without rockets, the capsule conveniently stops tumbling, rights itself, and enters the atmosphere with the heat-shields downward, after all.
This part didn't seem implausible to me. I figured the craft would be designed so that the correct orientation is the one with the least drag - so the initial drag forces would help it settle into the correct orientation.

Anybody know?

Oh yeah, forgot the big one: stuff traveling in a super fast version of the same orbit lapping you repeatedly. [Wall Bash]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
yeah gravity plays it extremely fast and loose with that there physics thing. It was using a number of flubs and make believey fudge physics to make the scenario and plot work. For things like being able to take a spacewalk from station to station.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
not even dissing the article, i completely understand it driving people nuts

article worked okay OKAY
 
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
 
SpaceShipOne (the X prize winner) had a "feathering" system that allowed it to reenter without the need of maneuvering rockets for stability. However that was a sub-orbital craft traveling at much lower speeds. Tumbling on reentry is a MAJOR problem for spacecraft.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Honestly, as someone who works with communication satellites on a regular basis, the biggest and most obvious problem with the movie is the idea that all of Earth's communication satellites got destroyed, and that they're on the same plane and orbit as the ISS.

Almost all communication satellites (including TV) are in geostationary orbit at 22,236 miles. The ISS orbits at 236 miles. This present several problems...

A) Communication satellites, even those in the same longitude (like G-23 and ES-9 at 121 W) are still hundreds, if not thousands of miles apart from each other. The chances of debris from one hitting another, or of them colliding, is so small it's more or less statistically impossible.

B) Said satellites orbit once every 24 hours. Anything that would cause them to start moving faster would also increase the size of their orbit, therefore moving them out of the Clark Belt, or out of Earth orbit entirely. So again, there's no way they could collide.

C) The amount of force necessary to accelerate/decelerate a satellite quickly enough to literally destroy *every* satellite in orbit in a few minutes would also cause an explosion large enough to cause some serious problems for those of us here on Earth.

So the entire premise is pretty ridiculous and impossible. Which is pretty much what you can expect from Hollywood. Didn't keep me from enjoying it immensely, though.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
lol osc is an old man who can't figure out how to use windows 8

it's super easy, all you have to do is, um

wtf how do i start menu

who coded this

what is this interface

oh my god no

no
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
In his defense, I know people who returned brand new computers when they found out it wasn't worth it to install Windows 7 on those machines. But IIRC this was Fall 12.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that's Sam's joke. My understanding is the joke goes like this: he was going to mock OSC for not understanding Windows 8 and then he tried to use Win8 and was confused by its awful interface and ended up just as confused as the "old man" and ... Yeah. That's the joke. OSC isn't alone in his confusion and frustration.

There are some nifty 3rd party add-ons that cosmetically restore windows 7 and keep the disgusting touchscreen Metro crap out of your way. If OSC sticks with Win8 someone who knows him should clue him in. iObit's Start 8 is the free one, there are a few low cost paid versions too.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Yeah, windows 8 is just horrific.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Windows 8 takes roughly 10 minutes to learn to use, and then all of the frustrations OSC mentioned become very minor. His ire is a bit outsized.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
ire or not, windows 8 is an excruciatingly dumb product and i hate it
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Yeah, I think it was a mistake to try to unify the PC experience with the tablet/phone experience. I see what they were going for, and I didn't know the ways in which I'd dislike it before I tried it, but it seems pretty clear that people don't want or need these things to be unified, and in fact probably the continued vitality of the PC niche corresponds to ways in which it works better for some tasks than other devices can, so, like, don't make that harder.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I think it would be great if I had a touchscreen or a tablet device to use to interface with it. There's a 5$ add on from Stardock that's really good and works well with multiple screens.

I'm 50/50 on it.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Yeah, I think it was a mistake to try to unify the PC experience with the tablet/phone experience.
I don't think they had any choice. They may not have done a good job of it, but I don't think there's any doubt that Apple and even Google are hoping for a unified OS experience across all of their devices and it's actually kind of amazing that it was Microsoft that moved first on this.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
They may have thought they had no choice, but honestly committing to it in the way they did was horrid and, if anything, gave the competitors leeway to sit back, relax, and slowly integrate a unified experience.

That doesn't do what win 8 did.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Yeah, I think it was a mistake to try to unify the PC experience with the tablet/phone experience.
I don't think they had any choice. They may not have done a good job of it, but I don't think there's any doubt that Apple and even Google are hoping for a unified OS experience across all of their devices and it's actually kind of amazing that it was Microsoft that moved first on this.
Fair point. I think it depends on what you mean by "unified". If it means that my keyboard and mouse are less convenient to use than they used to be, it's probably the wrong implementation, for now.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Yeah what "unified" means here is a big question mark. Apple has a lot of consistency: in look, apps, and functionality when appropriate. You could call it "unified" in many respects.

But iOS and OS X are still fundamentally different environments and I don't know that Apple intends on ever changing that. Small touch devices are sufficiently different than computers with mice and keyboards that I'm scratching my head as to why you'd want to give up the advantages of either. Make each OS play to be strengths of the medium.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Yeah what "unified" means here is a big question mark. Apple has a lot of consistency: in look, apps, and functionality when appropriate. You could call it "unified" in many respects.

But iOS and OS X are still fundamentally different environments and I don't know that Apple intends on ever changing that. Small touch devices are sufficiently different than computers with mice and keyboards that I'm scratching my head as to why you'd want to give up the advantages of either. Make each OS play to the strengths of the medium.

[ February 04, 2014, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
 
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Apple was playing with the idea of one OS to run them all a while back, but abandoned the idea. MS ran with it and came up with an OS that has some fantastic advancements, but failed to pay listen to people like me who repeatedly told them that the Metro interface just doesn't work with a desktop.

They were essentially betting on the emergence of touch capable devices in larger formats (desktop monitors, laptops, etc) to take advantage of the OS. This did not occur, in great part because the complexity of work that *has* to be done on a workstation or laptop does not easily lend itself to a touch based experience. If MS hadn't chosen to force Metro UI on the non-touch device sphere, it would have received a much better reception.

Once I installed Start8 on my computer at home, Windows 8 was just as effective and in some ways better than 7, but for some reason it didn't like my video card and I my game framerates dropped by about 75%, so I had to go back to 7 on my desktop. I still use 8 on my HTPC, though.

All that said, there are some really neat features in Windows 8 that are really useful for enterprise environments and small businesses, particularly in the realm of virtualization. Unfortunately, the screwed up user experience makes it unattractive to anyone who would want to use those features.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
If I *had* a touch-capable laptop or desktop monitor, I'd probably want to have Windows 8 running on it just to be able to take advantage of Metro once in a while. But I don't own my own laptop, and I like my ~6 year old monitor better than any consumer grade (i.e. affordable) monitors I can find these days.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Here are some more thoughts on whether a unified OS is a good idea: http://techpinions.com/unified-os-advocates-are-out-of-touch-with-reality/26954

Okay so the URL gives it away a little. But yeah. I'm inclined to agree.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
For what it's worth I find the quoting style in that article insufferable, but overall it was still worth reading.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Yeah, the quotebombing was...something. But it was informative.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I unparked my four processors once by kicking my win 8 machine by accident.

Biggest ??????? ever
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
I'm pretty entertained by the fact that it's inconceivable to Card that his tastes aren't universal, and that people must be eating Greek yogurt because they've willingly developed a taste for "nasty food" because of its healthiness.

He's just gotten absurdly inflexible in his thinking. If subsections of his essays had titles, that one would be called "Creon in the Dairy Aisle".
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
What always makes me cringe is his arrogance in thinking himself the definitive arbiter of "correctness" in pretty much every field.

Thinking himself more knowledgeable about Churchill than the person who wrote the autobiography he just read, would be one such instance.

I mean sure, maybe Card is the one who is correct about whatever details he is referencing in that section. But to flatly state that the author is "quite wrong", without saying which details are in question or what sources contradict them, is a level of arrogance that is pretty foreign to me.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Creon in the Dairy Aisle
Oh, that's a lovely turn of phrase. [Smile]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
What always makes me cringe is his arrogance in thinking himself the definitive arbiter of "correctness" in pretty much every field.

Thinking himself more knowledgeable about Churchill than the person who wrote the autobiography he just read, would be one such instance.

I mean sure, maybe Card is the one who is correct about whatever details he is referencing in that section. But to flatly state that the author is "quite wrong", without saying which details are in question or what sources contradict them, is a level of arrogance that is pretty foreign to me.

For quite awhile, I noticed many of the same things and chalked it up to blends of affectation for the sake of a column, ordinary but strong conviction on a given topic, along with an ordinary human general failure to ask 'what if I'm wrong?'

My impression has changed over the years. I'm really no in a good position to say how much of that is due to my greater exposure to his politics, particularly on social issues such as gay rights, and the very strong antagonism his methods and ideas arouse in me.

I'm sure that's some of it, but I don't think it's all or even most of it. It would be one thing if he felt passionately. So do I. But he is perfectly comfortable, it seems, to speak about incredibly complicated and controversial issues-such as what is meant by family, the intricacies of foreign policy-as though it were settled. As though he's got a straight line on the obvious truth, and detractors are generally some form of deviant whether it's in that they hate America, hate the religious, or hate families. I don't for example see him now writing another Ender's Game, or a Treason, or especially a Hart's Hope or a Songmaster. One of the many things that made those stories so powerful to me as that everyone, best to worst, was human. All grappled with uncertainty, whether the were good or bad. And there wasn't any what felt like transparent authorial preaching. That's been lost, and I notice it most in his fiction but more often in his columns and politics.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
I'm pretty entertained by the fact that it's inconceivable to Card that his tastes aren't universal, and that people must be eating Greek yogurt because they've willingly developed a taste for "nasty food" because of its healthiness.

He's just gotten absurdly inflexible in his thinking. If subsections of his essays had titles, that one would be called "Creon in the Dairy Aisle".

I've heard him say multiple times that he understands taste is subjective, and that his views are flawed, but that doesn't stop him from speaking about tastes in the way he does.

I feel like that statement you've quoted is obviously said tongue in cheek. It's over the top, but part of him still believes it.
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Creon in the Dairy Aisle
Oh, that's a lovely turn of phrase. [Smile]
Thanks. [Smile] I was kind of pleased when it popped into my head.
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
"What always makes me cringe is his arrogance in thinking himself the definitive arbiter of "correctness" in pretty much every field."

To me, that's the hallmark of the debating style here at Hatrack. I've come to expect that everyone knows more than the "experts" here, regardless of the topic. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I'm so mad

mad about yogurt
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
I'm pretty entertained by the fact that it's inconceivable to Card that his tastes aren't universal, and that people must be eating Greek yogurt because they've willingly developed a taste for "nasty food" because of its healthiness.

He's just gotten absurdly inflexible in his thinking. If subsections of his essays had titles, that one would be called "Creon in the Dairy Aisle".

I've heard him say multiple times that he understands taste is subjective, and that his views are flawed, but that doesn't stop him from speaking about tastes in the way he does.

I feel like that statement you've quoted is obviously said tongue in cheek. It's over the top, but part of him still believes it.

I think that if asked he'd readily admit that physical taste is subjective, but I think (to the degree that it's possible to actually know anything about him based on his essays) that he genuinely believes that the movement toward Greek yogurt is health-driven, and the reason that he thinks that is because he has trouble believing that lots of other people genuinely like the taste of something that he dislikes.

quote:
I'm so mad

mad about yogurt

That made me laugh.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Greek yogurt is pretty terrible. Not the taste, but the environmental impact with all the waste product generated from its creation. I'd be rather shocked if OSC brought that up though.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I also realized I was behind by two blogs.

quote:
Note to J.K. Rowling: The Harry Potter books are finished. Done. Published. If you wrote something then which you now, as a more mature writer, would probably do differently, so what? You did the best job you knew how to do at the time you wrote the story. Now move on. Your post-publication re-thinks are wasting everybody's time.

Only the first draft is real; your "revisions" in the news media have all, without exception, been pretty stupid, because they completely violate the integrity of what emerged from that first creative fire.

Trust your younger self. Let the older self write the stories that are on fire in your heart today. If there aren't any, then at least have the good taste not to attack the stories that made you rich because people loved them as they were. Not everything you think of is worth saying in public.

Apparently he's still upset that Dumbledore's gay.

After the big stink about Ron/Hermione, the full interview was published, and was a lot more nuanced the what the media reported.

http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrint-wonderland-020714.shtml

In neither case did J.K. Rowling make a press release saying "Dumbledore's Gay" or "Ron and Hermione should never have married." A fan asked her if Dumbledore had ever married, and the woman who PLAYED HERMIONE IN THE MOVIES asked her if she thought any differently about the character when looking back, as part of an interview about a new HP-related movie project.

Should she just not answer? Should we ban people from asking JKR questions about the books and her relationship to them? Or stop web editors who know that sharing these things might get you to click on a webpage? There's a reason her most recent book was written by "Robert Galbraith."

Anyway, this all reminded me of 1. the afterword of Fahrenheit 451, written decades later, where Ray Bradbury admits he would have changed many things, while simultaneously being outraged that people who were not him shared things that bothered them about the book. I disagreed with Bradbury's fantasy changes, but that didn't mean I didn't find reading about them interesting. Also, 2.OSC has certainly written over details from the Ender series with recent sequels.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
In the column he explains that by stating he is correcting factual inconsistencies. Also, if she wants to reveal more details about the characters, then write that stuff and publish it.

As for J.K. Rowling, perhaps Mr. Card does not know the full context of those two statements. But even then, yes you can answer them. But she'd be better served stating, "I had considered writing them like this, but..."

Personally I got the vibe that Dumbledore was gay, but I still felt if it was not worth mentioning in the book, then the author must not have felt very strongly about that aspect of the character.

Mainly Harry Potter sucks because the protagonist is not an American, nor are there any American wizards. We all know if anybody is going to save any wizarding world it's going to be those scrappy Americans with their plucky, no nonsense, can-do attitudes! With perhaps some gumption thrown in for good measure.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Note to J.K. Rowling: The Harry Potter books are finished. Done. Published. If you wrote something then which you now, as a more mature writer, would probably do differently, so what? You did the best job you knew how to do at the time you wrote the story. Now move on. Your post-publication re-thinks are wasting everybody's time.

Only the first draft is real; your "revisions" in the news media have all, without exception, been pretty stupid, because they completely violate the integrity of what emerged from that first creative fire.

Trust your younger self. Let the older self write the stories that are on fire in your heart today. If there aren't any, then at least have the good taste not to attack the stories that made you rich because people loved them as they were. Not everything you think of is worth saying in public.

The jaw dropping, horrifying, stupifying irony of that, when I read it, made me gasp with the shock of it.


quote:
Anyway, this all reminded me of 1. the afterword of Fahrenheit 451, written decades later, where Ray Bradbury admits he would have changed many things, while simultaneously being outraged that people who were not him shared things that bothered them about the book. I disagreed with Bradbury's fantasy changes, but that didn't mean I didn't find reading about them interesting. Also, 2.OSC has certainly written over details from the Ender series with recent sequels.
It has been 15 years since I read that afterword, but as I recall, it is an ironic, and somewhat angry, reply not only to critics but also to censors who had apparently "YA'd" his book and removed "offending," language. The bit about the Captain burning the pages of a book one at a time, for example, and declaring: "I don't read them!"

Also, he was more upset with the profound stupidness of the criticism- along the lines of people writing him letters to inform him that faber and montag are paper and pencil companies, stating: "and they didn't tell me!"

Also, yes, OSC has, multiple times, revised the text of Ender's Game, making changes I strongly disagree with. And I don't think that is his right, particularly given that the book has passed into place in literature from which it will be accessed by generations to come. He has no right to co-opt that success now by making changes.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
question: did OSC's spontaneous about-face to being a weird ass to JK rowling correspond essentially perfectly with her revealing that dumbledore was gay?

these are questions i must ask from my bathtub full of greek yogurt.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Short answer: yes with an if... long answer no, with a but.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Seriously though what EG details were glossed over that were actually fairly big? I know some contradictions were caught early in the proof reading process and fixed; the only thing I can remember now is how the size of the Jeesh went from like 30 to 9.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
There was the changing of "poltically incorrect" language that I found objectionable (the changes), for reasons here much discussed.

Then he apparently completely rewrote the last couple of chapters to fit with later books, and some other stuff. He just plain forgot where Ender lived when he was recruited, but I don't know that they fixed that.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I'm taking about the things from EG that got discarded in the writing of Ender in Exile.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Short answer: yes with an if... long answer no, with a but.

whaaat
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
I'm taking about the things from EG that got discarded in the writing of Ender in Exile.

I thought that process was just padded out, not dropped entirely.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
aw yiss, from the pay-2-play forum

quote:
Well, that was... different. [Smile]

I don't know if I enthusiastically agree with everything OSC wrote in his criticism of Obama and his policies, but I do agree with his premise that the U.S. has been, to paraphrase in the spirit of Churchill, "The worst superpower in history... except for all the other ones."

The primary point I take issue with is OSC's Hari Seldon-like prediction that everything will soon come crashing down around us... but I suppose time will tell on that point.

aw yiss big ol obama doomsday rant coming on down the pipeline

ARE YOU READY

(i'm ready)
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Barack Obama is the Beloved Leader of the America-hating Left -- and yes, they hate America and everything it stands for, until you say so, and then they get all tetchy and accuse you of impugning their patriotism.
of course
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
It's not that Barack Obama doesn't know how to be tough. If he had shown half the firmness with America's enemies that he has shown in slapping around the Republican Party and the few elements of the media that don't lick his shoes, we would be in a much stronger position in the world.
...what
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Crimea is holding a succession vote today. Russia's acquisition of that territory is directly in violation of international law. If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
Intervene how, exactly? I for one am not prepared for myself and my family perishing in nuclear fire for the sake of Ukrainian sovereignty, thanks.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:
If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
Intervene how, exactly? I for one am not prepared for myself and my family perishing in nuclear fire for the sake of Ukrainian sovereignty, thanks.
Putin is not going to commit to nuclear war over a slice of Ukraine anymore than he did when we told him to get his butt out of Georgia.

We could start with offering the Ukraine an IMF relief package that will ween them off Russia, and allow the Ukraine to determine for themselves if they should let the East secede. Russia has no business making that decision for them, and the so called president of Crimea has no authority to hand that territory over to them.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
If we do nothing, we'll pay for this later. Mr. Card isn't wrong about that. When a country can be bullied by a larger country and nobody does anything about it, all the bullies start dividing the globe up.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:
If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
Intervene how, exactly? I for one am not prepared for myself and my family perishing in nuclear fire for the sake of Ukrainian sovereignty, thanks.
Putin is not going to commit to nuclear war over a slice of Ukraine anymore than he did when we told him to get his butt out of Georgia.

We could start with offering the Ukraine an IMF relief package that will ween them off Russia, and allow the Ukraine to determine for themselves if they should let the East secede. Russia has no business making that decision for them, and the so called president of Crimea has no authority to hand that territory over to them.

The IMF is still insisting on austerity measures such as cutting energy subsidies, it won't be from the IMF.

You don't know if Putin will commit to nuclear war, but we DO know he will commit to a full conventional war if the red line is crossed (Ukraine joining NATO).

quote:

If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.

Ukraine isn't in NATO, Poland and many other countries that border Russia are; or already firmly in the Russian or Chinese sphere.

The only precedent set is that if you're a Great Power with nukes the US can't enforce its will on you. Otherwise the US is already taking steps, such as sending units to the Baltic and so on; Poland is also stepping up to the plate.

Maybe America should not be the ones directly stepping in first man in last man out? Let the regional organizations handle it; what should America do if Germany and France aren't on board?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Russia's acquisition of that territory is directly in violation of international law. If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.

Hey, dealing with Crimea would be great. Have at it. Seriously.

But while you're at it, since the US is suddenly interested in international law for some weird reason, wouldn't this be a great time to deal with a torture prison camp in Cuba, drone strikes in multiple countries, and a military occupation in Palestine? You know, the kinds of violations of international law that the US has full control over? K, thanks.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
The IMF is still insisting on austerity measures such as cutting energy subsidies, it won't be from the IMF.

You don't know if Putin will commit to nuclear war, but we DO know he will commit to a full conventional war if the red line is crossed (Ukraine joining NATO).

Austerity sounds a lot better than being eaten. And I don't think we *should* let the Ukraine into NATO. The Ukraine has way too much history with Russia, and it's too important for Russia to let go. It probably doesn't belong in the EU either. But let it continue to be a sort of autonomous mediator between Russia and West Europe.

quote:
The only precedent set is that if you're a Great Power with nukes the US can't enforce its will on you.
Let's not forget Russia is the one who broke the status quo, they are the ones trying to see if we'll blink. That makes Russia first ones in, not the US.

quote:
But while you're at it, since the US is suddenly interested in international law for some weird reason, wouldn't this be a great time to deal with a torture prison camp in Cuba, drone strikes in multiple countries, and a military occupation in Palestine? You know, the kinds of violations of international law that the US has full control over? K, thanks.
Yes because either you do the right thing 100% of the time or 0%. You know I hate Guantanamo Bay, it's a blot on us I don't think I'll ever let myself forget. Drone strikes are conducted with the permission of the host government generally speaking, and they certainly aren't used to acquire other people's stuff. Israel/Palestine is not an issue I can do justice, but it's not an instance where the US would ever allow Israel to annex Palestine.

The US absolutely has made grievous mistakes. It still makes them. But lets not forget we are leaving Afghanistan, and Iraq and we never had any intention making them colonies. Let's not forget Somalia, Kosovo, Taiwan.

But sure, by all means lets pretend the US is no different from Russia, and that really the whole world will be so much better if the US goes back to it's pre-WWII foreign policy of not caring what goes on anywhere outside its borders.

It's not like hegemonic stability theory means anything anyway right? I'm sure China will step right into that role and perform it beautifully.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
quote:
Crimea is holding a succession vote today. Russia's acquisition of that territory is directly in violation of international law. If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the US's course of action in this case represents such an unambiguous message. There are all sorts of reasons why the US (and EU for that matter) could fail to intervene effectively that don't apply to other situations. Considering the stakes involved, would you really want to take a chance that it was just ennui? Even Russia should worry that the rules will have changed by the time they start leaning on the Baltic states. The only rational course is to judge each situation on its own merits without relying overmuch on "well they didn't do anything last time." You recall how that logic turned out for Germany?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The US has already canceled the upcoming G8 meeting in Sochi, and there are a lot of sounds coming out that Russia may be booted from the G8 in general.

In the mean time, there's a bill in the pipeline for emergency relief funding for Ukraine from the US Congress. I think we have France and Germany on board for sanctions, but having the British would help more. Billions in Russian finance is in London right now, and if they can threaten to freeze those assets, it'll go a long way towards making Russia feel more pain.

In all, we probably can't stop Russia if they really want to do this. We're not willing to send weapons. But we can make them pay a serious cost that will have to be factored into their calculus for future actions like this. Getting Europe on board will be absolutely essential.

But in the long run, I think Russia loses if they try to grab the Crimea. They'll take on a pretty big financial burden since Crimea is almost entirely supported, energy, water, and food wise from the mainland. They'll also be taking in a 30% Ukrainian/Tatar population that absolutely does not want to go Russian, and in the case of the Tatar minority, is increasingly radicalized Muslims with outside financing. That didn't go so well for Russia in Chechnya and other places, I don't imagine it will go well in the Crimea. Not to mention they'll pay an international cost, and galvanize regional actors against them at a time when relations were thawing between many.

This creates a lot of problems for him for very little gain.

Elison -

quote:
The IMF is still insisting on austerity measures such as cutting energy subsidies, it won't be from the IMF.
Which is exactly what they should do. A combination of artificially low prices from Russia and government subsidies are what got so many people hooked on high gas use to begin with. They need to ween themselves off of those prices to encourage people to use less gas and give Russia less leverage.

quote:
Ukraine isn't in NATO, Poland and many other countries that border Russia are; or already firmly in the Russian or Chinese sphere.

The only precedent set is that if you're a Great Power with nukes the US can't enforce its will on you. Otherwise the US is already taking steps, such as sending units to the Baltic and so on; Poland is also stepping up to the plate.

Maybe America should not be the ones directly stepping in first man in last man out? Let the regional organizations handle it; what should America do if Germany and France aren't on board?

Many Russian neighbors have been pulling away from Russia's sphere of influence for awhile now, most notably Moldova and Georgia. But a lot of commentators have noted that Poland, which until recently had pretty bad relations with Russia, will probably move further away from them as a result of the Ukraine action. There had been a thaw recently, but this will push them back into Europe's sway rather than Russia's. This is an isolating, rather than cowing motion. Neighbors won't be scared into acquiescence, they'll be more resolved than ever to resist.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
Putin is not going to commit to nuclear war over a slice of Ukraine anymore than he did when we told him to get his butt out of Georgia.

Yeah, my fear is not that it'd just go straight to nuclear war. But if Ukraine goes to war with Russia, and we commit our own military in support, we have Russians and Americans killing each-other with guns and bombs and planes.

There's a reason that through 40+ years of cold war, we avoided that particular situation at all costs. Its because when Americans and Russians start killing each-other, use of nuclear weapons becomes almost inevitable. Particularly when one side starts losing.

It's just not worth the risk. Not even close.

So if Ukraine goes to war with Russia, we pretty much have to tell them "good luck" and watch them get slaughtered.

All of the Hitler analogies fall flat, because Hitler didn't have enough nukes to end human existence.

We have a red line. That red line is NATO. Anything short of that, and our "intervention" options do not include the military. Period. And Putin already knows this.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Xavier: Who used a Hitler analogy?

I agree a conventional war with Russia is not a good idea. But we still have to actually do something substantive, or we will fight this battle again and again.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Hillary Clinton did.

And I think as a comparison to appeasement and land grabs, she's right in that context.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
Xavier: Who used a Hitler analogy?
Everyone arguing for intervention. Not always by name, but when people talk about how "appeasement doesn't work" and "historical parallels" and all that, its a pretty obvious subtext.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
The Hitler analogies may not be entirely relevant in terms of consequences of engagement, but the tactics on Putin's side are identical to the point of absurdity.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
There IS a parallel there. I get the distinction you're making regarding nukes, but there's still a parallel.

When push comes to shove, if Putin invaded Poland, would you risk the nukes?

What about Germany? France? Britain?

At some point you're going to have to say yes and stand up to him.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
The other parallel is that Putin's probably not going to accurately predict where the line is.

Saddam didn't either.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Something else to keep in mind:

If I'm Iran watching all this unfold, my resolve to never, ever, ever give up my nuclear weapons program increases 100 fold.

Russia wouldn't be stealing the Crimea from Ukraine if Ukraine still had nukes, but Ukraine signed a deal in 1994 to give up its nukes is Russia promised never to violate Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. In other words, no stealing land. It also included guarantees to not threaten Ukraine via economic or military force.

That agreement has been thrown out the window.

So if I'm a budding nuclear power, I look at this and see that no agreement written on paper will ever, ever guarantee me the kind of security granted by the threat of nuclear weapons. I'd never give them up.

That's another reason why the world community needs to put Putin in line. He's making nuclear proliferation more likely by showing the value of nukes and the dangers of giving them up.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:
Xavier: Who used a Hitler analogy?
Everyone arguing for intervention. Not always by name, but when people talk about how "appeasement doesn't work" and "historical parallels" and all that, its a pretty obvious subtext.
I don't think Hitler is the only historical instance where because nobody stops a bully it emboldens them and other bullies. But he certainly qualifies. To be honest, I wasn't really thinking about him, but I can see how easily he can be conjured up in this discussion.

I think Lyrhawn made an excellent point. It's not just Russia that becomes a problem if this is allowed to stand. It reforms the calculus other nations make in regards to their own borders.

You are absolutely right that two nuclear armed nations engaging in conventional warfare is a horrible thing that nobody wants to be the first to try, because there may never be a second time. But Putin can't use territory grabs as a way to keep the country behind him.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
When push comes to shove, if Putin invaded Poland, would you risk the nukes?

What about Germany? France? Britain?

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. All four are NATO nations. Putin knows that invading any of those nations means war with the US.

Other nations not in NATO that I would put on that list: Japan, Australia, South Korea. There are perhaps a dozen other nations that I would tentatively include as mandatory military intervention. Also oddball scenarios like an unprovoked invasion into Africa or something like that.

But this isn't anything like that.


My sympathies lie with Ukraine, and I am in favor of pretty much any non-military threats or sanctions. I just think tough talk about using our armed forces in any way is beyond dangerous.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Who is suggesting we use military assets to actively engage?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
The Hitler analogies may not be entirely relevant in terms of consequences of engagement, but the tactics on Putin's side are identical to the point of absurdity.

Hobbes [Smile]

Identical? No, I think that's seriously overstating things. Not that I have the least respect for Putin as a decent human being or a conscientious national leader.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Really? Perhaps "tactics" implied to[o] broad a brush. But supplying troops and/ funds to "Germans" in a country you want to occupy, claiming the need to protect that group, and then demanding land and control from the country was the tactic Hitler used again and again until, using it on Poland, he kick-started WWII. From my reading of the news, that is identical to the tactic Putin was taking.

And that was what I was referring to, if it seemed like I meant to also include "blame and slaughter social undesirables in your own country by the millions" I apologize.

Hobbes [Smile]

[ March 07, 2014, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Yeah. Not so much holocaust, but there's a lot of Sudetenland here.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Who is suggesting we use military assets to actively engage?

well, OSC's argument is fundamentally underpinned by military engagement
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Sorry, I meant to say "what serious person is suggesting we use military assets..."

I have no idea what OSC actually wants to do. Airstrikes on Moscow? Who knows.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Yeah. Not so much holocaust, but there's a lot of Sudetenland here.

Absolutely. My remark was mostly one of degree. There are certainly similarities to both the Sudentland and some to Aunschlass (spelling totally escapes me atm) as well. It may even turn out that most of the controversy within Ukraine has been generated by Russian provocateurs, as was the case in the WWII buildup. I was just pointing out that it seemed to me there were more legitimate beefs this time around, whereas in WWII when Hitler wished to expand, he made a habit of deliberately creating them.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Something else to keep in mind:

If I'm Iran watching all this unfold, my resolve to never, ever, ever give up my nuclear weapons program increases 100 fold.

Russia wouldn't be stealing the Crimea from Ukraine if Ukraine still had nukes, but Ukraine signed a deal in 1994 to give up its nukes is Russia promised never to violate Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. In other words, no stealing land. It also included guarantees to not threaten Ukraine via economic or military force.

That agreement has been thrown out the window.

So if I'm a budding nuclear power, I look at this and see that no agreement written on paper will ever, ever guarantee me the kind of security granted by the threat of nuclear weapons. I'd never give them up.

That's another reason why the world community needs to put Putin in line. He's making nuclear proliferation more likely by showing the value of nukes and the dangers of giving them up.

This is silly, Ukraine had zero capability to responsibly maintain and take care of those nuclear weapons, handing them over to Russia or destroying them was the only responsible decision. Being a nuclear power opens you to a level of strategic consequences that 95% of nations want nothing to do with. Such as opening you to nuclear tipped bunker busting munitions.

Additionally, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, that's been largely fabricated by the United States; they've been "6 months away from a bomb" since the 1990's. Its a civilian nuclear program as allowed by being a part of the NPT; Iran still has incentive to freeze progress because of crippling economic sanctions. Iran is already being screwed over by rumors of a nuclear program, actually having one doesn't rationally help them.

quote:

Which is exactly what they should do. A combination of artificially low prices from Russia and government subsidies are what got so many people hooked on high gas use to begin with. They need to ween themselves off of those prices to encourage people to use less gas and give Russia less leverage.

This is hilariously wrong. Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus have some of the harshest winter conditions in the developed world with some of the highest cost of living in such because of the price of heating.

You reduce or eliminate subsidies and you're back to square one with tens of thousands back in the streets protesting unlivable living conditions. It'ld collapse the government again, its political suicide.

Also the infrastructure doesn't support it, something like 40% of government buildings, communal homes and regular homes are built to use gas. You'ld need to rebuild something like one third of the country's infrastructure.

quote:

But in the long run, I think Russia loses if they try to grab the Crimea.

Not really, not unless this escalates, Russia loses for sure if they lose Sevastopol; they don't have the military ports of sufficient size to support the Black Sea Fleet; additionally Ukraine joining NATO presents a situation of strategic encircle; an agreement that NATO had abrogated years ago when they promised there would be no eastward expansion of NATO, which was broken.

By taking Crimea, Ukraine can't join NATO, you can't have ongoing border disputes and this essentially sabotages Ukraine as a country, so they can't join the EU either; Russia wins.

quote:

In the mean time, there's a bill in the pipeline for emergency relief funding for Ukraine from the US Congress.

IIRC, this is for 1 billion$, Ukraine needs over 35 billion$.

quote:

I think we have France and Germany on board for sanctions,

Germany for sure isn't.

quote:

Austerity sounds a lot better than being eaten.

To reiterate, this is impossible. It'll collapse either the transitionary gov't, or the next government when elections happen. Greece was fairly close to tipping and that's a developed country with a well rooted democracy; Ukraine's is a clusterfruit and can't survive the fall out, MILLIONS of Ukrainians absolutely need that gas.

I really recommend the Eastern Europe thread at SA, it goes into all of these and shows why Ukraine's situation is extremely dire.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
It's been awhile since I've gotten into one of these with you, so here goes!

quote:
This is silly, Ukraine had zero capability to responsibly maintain and take care of those nuclear weapons, handing them over to Russia or destroying them was the only responsible decision. Being a nuclear power opens you to a level of strategic consequences that 95% of nations want nothing to do with. Such as opening you to nuclear tipped bunker busting munitions.

Additionally, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, that's been largely fabricated by the United States; they've been "6 months away from a bomb" since the 1990's. Its a civilian nuclear program as allowed by being a part of the NPT; Iran still has incentive to freeze progress because of crippling economic sanctions. Iran is already being screwed over by rumors of a nuclear program, actually having one doesn't rationally help them.

It really couldn't possibly matter less whether or not Ukraine could maintain all of them. They could have easily either sold them for straight up cash, or they could have reduced the stockpile to a much much more manageable size, like say China's. Ukraine had a HUGE nuclear arsenal, just shy of 2000 nukes, with a myriad array of delivery systems. They could have greatly simplified that down to maybe a couple dozen weapons. Expensive perhaps, but relatively easily maintained, and that would have been all the veto power they needed to keep someone like Russia from making a land grab for the Crimea. Instead, they TRUSTED them. Look where trust got them. And woe to anyone who decides trust is worth more than a warm bucket of spit in geopolitcs. Nukes would keep them safe. Promises do not.

As for Iran...please. The IAEA isn't exactly an American lapdog, and they've said in the last few years that there is strong, strong evidence that Iran has been researching weapons design.

quote:
This is hilariously wrong. Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus have some of the harshest winter conditions in the developed world with some of the highest cost of living in such because of the price of heating.

You reduce or eliminate subsidies and you're back to square one with tens of thousands back in the streets protesting unlivable living conditions. It'ld collapse the government again, its political suicide.

Also the infrastructure doesn't support it, something like 40% of government buildings, communal homes and regular homes are built to use gas. You'ld need to rebuild something like one third of the country's infrastructure.

Reduce, diversify, and expand domestic supply. They need to cut back on supply to gain leverage with Russia, and if they didn't know it before, they know it now. They need to expand to other heating sources. And they need to dramatically increase their own supply. They're starting to do that last one, signing some big deals with Western shale gas drillers. Within five to ten years they could be entirely free of Russia's gas thrall, which would put them in an incredibly advantageous position to negotiation transfer rights for pipelines that run through their territory. It might make them an exporter to Europe that draws them closer to the West and pinches Putin's even more.

That's a future solution, of course. But their gas subsidies are a bankrupting mess. They're pouring money down the drain, and many people think billions could be going astray in what essentially is money laundering schemes by Yanukovich's government. The money going to the energy industry, by and large, isn't even being used to hold prices down, prices are actually dramatically inflated in part because Russia charges a huge premium for gas. The subsidy money is essentially being passed around to cronies to keep a lot of people employed and a lot of hands greased while not providing much relief for consumers and not upgrading a dangerously old pipeline network.

Simply put, subsidies aren't doing what you think they're doing, and they're bankrupting the country. They need to put in place an immediate, mid and long term solution to cut consumption, cut corporate giveaways, and ween themselves off Russian gas, as quickly as possible. They aren't stupid, they know where the gas comes from and they know how weak it makes them.

quote:
Not really, not unless this escalates, Russia loses for sure if they lose Sevastopol; they don't have the military ports of sufficient size to support the Black Sea Fleet; additionally Ukraine joining NATO presents a situation of strategic encircle; an agreement that NATO had abrogated years ago when they promised there would be no eastward expansion of NATO, which was broken.

By taking Crimea, Ukraine can't join NATO, you can't have ongoing border disputes and this essentially sabotages Ukraine as a country, so they can't join the EU either; Russia wins.

No, they lose on just about every count. Ukraine was very, very unlikely to kick them out of Sevastopol, and if they tried, Ukraine would never have been able to secure outside funding for its debt problems because Russia could easily use the world community to get Ukraine to honor its longterm basing agreements. It was all just saber rattling on Ukraine's part.

But they've already lost international prestige. No one will take them seriously on a range of international issues now, since Russia's argument of respecting national sovereignty is a laugh line rather than a police statement now. They'll be virtually ignored now at the UN. They damaged their relationship with China as well, who wants to support them, but is scared to death of approving of anything that threatens arguments regarding territorial sovereignty because they have their own issues out west and with Taiwan. They're also likely to be booted out of the G8, and stand to have billions in assets frozen. I have no idea what sort of sanctions will be in play, but it's likely to cost them as well.

They also foment opposition to them by scaring the ever loving crap out of the Baltic States, Poland, et at. All of them are shouting for United States military help. They want US fighers on their bases ASAP. He spent years trying to thaw relations with these people only to swipe it all away and push them all into the Western camp. Stupid.

But all of that ignores the situation actually within Crimea. 2/3rds of the population might be ethnic Russian and support Russia, but the other third is very much NOT Russian, and will be very angry. The Tatar population probably violently so. The Crimea depends on the mainland for energy, food, water and basically all necessities of life. It's also full of old broken down industries and factories that require infusions of cash to keep competitive internationally.

Putin is taking on a huge headache to guarantee access to a port he was never going to lose access too. There will be a rebellion in Crimea within a year or two, centered on Crimean Tatars, and he'll have to permanently station troops there to quell it. It's a drain on military resources he really can't afford.

Even in his best case scenario, he loses far more than he gains.

quote:
IIRC, this is for 1 billion$, Ukraine needs over 35 billion$.
The $1 billion is specifically for energy subsidies until a larger deal can be worked out with allies. Ukraine needs something in the neighborhood of $15-20 billion in the next few weeks to keep them afloat. They'll come up with it.

quote:
Germany for sure isn't.
Merkel on same page with Obama

They aren't willing to do punitive damage, but they're willing to join in in an effort to get Putin to pull back. So....

quote:
To reiterate, this is impossible. It'll collapse either the transitionary gov't, or the next government when elections happen. Greece was fairly close to tipping and that's a developed country with a well rooted democracy; Ukraine's is a clusterfruit and can't survive the fall out, MILLIONS of Ukrainians absolutely need that gas.
And I would posit that you don't totally know what you're talking about. Regardless, I'm not suggesting they shut off the spigots tomorrow. But they need to change their behavior going forward.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I've been in since this started a long ongoing discussion thread in which several Ukrainians and other eastern Europeans posted and provided their commentary, along with other people who have expertese in the region: Austerity measures was a no go with Yanukuvich because it was political suicide and went with the option that seemed the lesser of two evils. It is *still* political suicide even for the neoliberal right wing coalition because it harms so many millions of people that it will cause political unrest as bad that kicked Yanukuvich out; this is the most likely scenario according to those Ukrainians I've seen comment on the issue (people from Maidan, not Party of Regions).

quote:

Merkel on same page with Obama

Not quite, actions matter, not words, Germany and Russia are huge trading partners and Europe is dependent on Russian gas, they're not going to impose sanctions and so far this isn't on the table.


Its not about "behavior" there just isn't a way for them to consume less gas, they aren't consuming some inordinate amount of gas for electricity and heating or wasting it. What Ukraine probably needs is to rebuild their infrastructure and expand nuclear power and renewables (as does Germany who stupidly close down nuclear power plants for coal and gas plants); but they can't do that while they are economically insolvent.

What you are suggesting just isn't practical or reasonable, end result; another parliamentary crisis and mass protests.

quote:

The $1 billion is specifically for energy subsidies until a larger deal can be worked out with allies. Ukraine needs something in the neighborhood of $15-20 billion in the next few weeks to keep them afloat. They'll come up with it.

But so far though this deal hasn't materialized yet? I think Ukraine needs like a Marshall Plan type deal, lumpsum of something akin to 100-200 billion$ to stabilize and fix things, but so far this isn't in the cards.

quote:

No, they lose on just about every count. Ukraine was very, very unlikely to kick them out of Sevastopol

This isn't true, the last time it had to be rammed through the Rada, how can you possibly know what the anti-Russophone fascists will or will not do?

quote:

and if they tried, Ukraine would never have been able to secure outside funding for its debt problems because Russia could easily use the world community to get Ukraine to honor its longterm basing agreements. It was all just saber rattling on Ukraine's part.

That it would've been economically stupid doesn't prevent politicians, especially those driven by ideological extremism to do stupid things.

quote:

No one will take them seriously on a range of international issues now, since Russia's argument of respecting national sovereignty is a laugh line rather than a police statement now.

Russia appears to have gained prestige among various Arab communities, its not a complete win, there are costs but its easy to see the Russian perspective as to how letting things happen on their own could've been worse.

China and Russia are still fairly close, China made non-committal tch tch noises but in the end this event helps China as isolation from Europe and the West, in the worst case scenario, just means further integration with China and the Shanghai Cooperation.

quote:

The Crimea depends on the mainland for energy, food, water and basically all necessities of life. It's also full of old broken down industries and factories that require infusions of cash to keep competitive internationally.

And the Russians spent 50 billion on Sochi, I don't think the cost matters to them; I've actually seen a lot of analysis that the rubble devaluation will actually easily make them tens of billions in oil and gas exports.

quote:

They're also likely to be booted out of the G8, and stand to have billions in assets frozen. I have no idea what sort of sanctions will be in play, but it's likely to cost them as well.

There won't be sanctions, and kicking them from the G8 Kerry has already said would be "Unproductive", its not happening.

Do you only read one source of news at this or something? Seriously, read SA.

quote:

It really couldn't possibly matter less whether or not Ukraine could maintain all of them. They could have easily either sold them for straight up cash, or they could have reduced the stockpile to a much much more manageable size, like say China's. Ukraine had a HUGE nuclear arsenal, just shy of 2000 nukes, with a myriad array of delivery systems. They could have greatly simplified that down to maybe a couple dozen weapons. Expensive perhaps, but relatively easily maintained, and that would have been all the veto power they needed to keep someone like Russia from making a land grab for the Crimea. Instead, they TRUSTED them. Look where trust got them. And woe to anyone who decides trust is worth more than a warm bucket of spit in geopolitcs. Nukes would keep them safe. Promises do not.

As for Iran...please. The IAEA isn't exactly an American lapdog, and they've said in the last few years that there is strong, strong evidence that Iran has been researching weapons design.

This is really quite knee jerk and narrow focused; Ukraine had no legitimate interest in being a nuclear weapons state; it could neither afford them, nor safely despose of them; sell them to who? Who would buy over 1000 Russian nuclear weapons? Who would afford to maintain them? Someone would have to foot the bill and in the end this was only Russia.

And then what, suppose they could maintain 50 war heads, and then what? Do they have delivery systems? Could they have maintained them? Kept those secure? Would they have been able to reach Moscow or Volgagrad? Are you suggesting Ukraine uses nuclear weapons on Russia to prevent the loss of the Crimea? This seems irresponsible policy.

(Also, maintaining even a 'dozen' nuclear weapons is actually rather expensive).

I haven't followed the IAEA reports for some time but there were serious doubts raised about some behind the scenes shenanigans.

Nevertheless, Iran's economy needs the US sanctions lifted, so it'll agree to do so.

quote:

Reduce, diversify, and expand domestic supply. They need to cut back on supply to gain leverage with Russia, and if they didn't know it before, they know it now. They need to expand to other heating sources. And they need to dramatically increase their own supply. They're starting to do that last one, signing some big deals with Western shale gas drillers. Within five to ten years they could be entirely free of Russia's gas thrall, which would put them in an incredibly advantageous position to negotiation transfer rights for pipelines that run through their territory. It might make them an exporter to Europe that draws them closer to the West and pinches Putin's even more.

That's a future solution, of course. But their gas subsidies are a bankrupting mess. They're pouring money down the drain, and many people think billions could be going astray in what essentially is money laundering schemes by Yanukovich's government. The money going to the energy industry, by and large, isn't even being used to hold prices down, prices are actually dramatically inflated in part because Russia charges a huge premium for gas. The subsidy money is essentially being passed around to cronies to keep a lot of people employed and a lot of hands greased while not providing much relief for consumers and not upgrading a dangerously old pipeline network.

Simply put, subsidies aren't doing what you think they're doing, and they're bankrupting the country. They need to put in place an immediate, mid and long term solution to cut consumption, cut corporate giveaways, and ween themselves off Russian gas, as quickly as possible. They aren't stupid, they know where the gas comes from and they know how weak it makes them.

Subsidies to gas consumption don't work that way, this is a resource that lacks elactisity, it'll be consumed anyways, there isn't a feasible means to radically reduce gas consumption by cutting subsidies, you'll just get mass protests as the cost of living increases, especially for pensioners.

Now you're right that they do need to diversify, but it can't be at the end of a IMF Austerity package; to do what needs doing requires more the the minimum required to prevent a default.

Ukraine needs a Marshall Plan and the West doesn't care enough about Ukraine it seems to give it.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
But while you're at it, since the US is suddenly interested in international law for some weird reason, wouldn't this be a great time to deal with a torture prison camp in Cuba, drone strikes in multiple countries, and a military occupation in Palestine? You know, the kinds of violations of international law that the US has full control over? K, thanks.
Yes because either you do the right thing 100% of the time or 0%.
Yeah, I don't know what phrases like "while you're at it" or "Have at it" mean where you're from, but here it means that you can in fact go ahead and do "the right thing."

I'm just reminding you that as a matter of resources that there are on-going situations causing things like torture, have killed thousands, and have displaced people for decades, and are much more cost-effective to address. By not addressing them, you undercut this funny narrative that you're trying to sell about confronting bullies.

It's like if a bully was peeing on your lawn, yeah, we might sympathize. But if you're trying to recruit us to help out, you should probably stop kicking puppies while asking us for help, y'know?

quote:
Drone strikes are conducted with the permission of
the host government generally speaking

That's a weird defence that's been floating around and I can't imagine that Americans would ever accept this if anyone else was doing it.

One of the major charges against Assad in Syria is that he attacked civilians in his own country. Would it somehow be better if he had the Russians conduct drone strikes instead? Would that somehow absolve the Russians of their responsibility? Would it absolve Assad? Responsibility multiplies in these cases, it doesn't divide.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
So if I'm a budding nuclear power, I look at this and see that no agreement written on paper will ever, ever guarantee me the kind of security granted by the threat of nuclear weapons. I'd never give them up.

That's another reason why the world community needs to put Putin in line.

I fully agree that's the lesson I would learn now ... if I was born a week ago or something.

I don't see how any budding nuclear power could be in a situation where they look at Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Libya's experiences over the last few years and not learn that lesson, but then look at Crimea and be like, "that, THAT's the event that will decide it for me."

I think the cat's permanently out of the bag on that one and has been for quite some time.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Not quite, actions matter, not words, Germany and Russia are huge trading partners and Europe is dependent on Russian gas, they're not going to impose sanctions and so far this isn't on the table.


Its not about "behavior" there just isn't a way for them to consume less gas, they aren't consuming some inordinate amount of gas for electricity and heating or wasting it. What Ukraine probably needs is to rebuild their infrastructure and expand nuclear power and renewables (as does Germany who stupidly close down nuclear power plants for coal and gas plants); but they can't do that while they are economically insolvent.

What you are suggesting just isn't practical or reasonable, end result; another parliamentary crisis and mass protests.

Merkel is quoted as saying that, while they get a lot of their gas from Russia, it's not even a majority, and they have plenty of gas reserves. Plus it was a mild winter. They'll be fine if Russia gets pissy and shuts off the spigot.

And again, no one is suggesting they dramatically jack up heating prices over night. But a lot of that subsidy money was just plain wasted. It was crony capitalism and giveaways, not direct subsidies to consumers. That part is fine, the part where Yanukovich was paying off gas oligarchs, not so much.

quote:
But so far though this deal hasn't materialized yet? I think Ukraine needs like a Marshall Plan type deal, lumpsum of something akin to 100-200 billion$ to stabilize and fix things, but so far this isn't in the cards.
$200 billion was never on the table from ANY country. Russia was going to give Yanukovich $15 billion to stabilize them. The US and Europe are talking through a loan of similar amounts if they'll open up their markets some and move into more of an EU way of doing things. Most economists think it'll be a huge win for Ukraine, billions in extra economic activity will be created. They'll have to grow their way out of this problem the way every other country that has been in similar situations has. The West will give them some training wheels, but they won't ride the bike for them. Nor is Ukraine asking for that. You're being melodramatic.

quote:
This isn't true, the last time it had to be rammed through the Rada, how can you possibly know what the anti-Russophone fascists will or will not do?
Because there's more to it than that. Let's say the Ukrainian Parliament HAD decided to kick them out. Russia saber rattles a little bit and shuts off the gas spigots and Ukraine comes back around, or the US and West apply gentle pressure to not upset the apple cart too quickly. Or Russia appeals to the world community to get Ukraine to adhere to previous agreements made and gets a Security Council Resolution going. There were a ton of things that would have happened if, IF Ukraine had decided to revoke base access, which you don't know would have happened. The point is, Russia jumped the gun. They went from step 2 to step 35 in the blink of an eye.

quote:
Russia appears to have gained prestige among various Arab communities, its not a complete win, there are costs but its easy to see the Russian perspective as to how letting things happen on their own could've been worse.

China and Russia are still fairly close, China made non-committal tch tch noises but in the end this event helps China as isolation from Europe and the West, in the worst case scenario, just means further integration with China and the Shanghai Cooperation.

Derive the majority of their GDP from trade with Arab states, do they? No. They get most of it from the West, and most of that from Europe. Europe isn't going to be in any mood to cut them any favors, and on the next Syria or the next Iran, no one is going to care what Russia has to say, and no one is going to take Russia seriously when they tell us we have to respect Iran or Syria or whoever's territorial sovereignty. They lost all credibility on the issue. That matters. There's more to influence than how much you can scare people. There's respect. No one in the G7 respects them anymore.

And if you think China was lightly brushing this off, you're crazy. It put them in an incredibly awkward position. They might be allies on some issues, but at the end of the day, China and Russia are not natural allies. They're allies of convenience.

quote:
And the Russians spent 50 billion on Sochi, I don't think the cost matters to them; I've actually seen a lot of analysis that the rubble devaluation will actually easily make them tens of billions in oil and gas exports.
Yes, I'm sure the cost doesn't matter to them now, but it was still an incredibly expensive, stupid thing to do. It'll cost them a lot of money in the long run. For now the Russian people are okay with living in a failed kleptocracy, but eventually Europe is going to wise up, and when the Europeans turn off the spigots on their end, Russia goes down hard. Hard. Because it's really all they have propping up the entire economy, and they just signaled to the world that it's time to get moving as fast as possible on making Russia's overpriced gas obsolete.

As you noted above, politician's do stupid things. They aren't concerned not because they thing it's a good investment, but because they aren't gaming this out long term to see the lifetime costs of the decision. It's not going to make them money. It's going to be a black hole.

quote:
There won't be sanctions, and kicking them from the G8 Kerry has already said would be "Unproductive", its not happening.

Do you only read one source of news at this or something? Seriously, read SA.

The G8 Meeting in Sochi has already been effectively canceled. Russia was let into the G8 as a sort of olive branch to try to woo them, but if they've decided to be bad actors, there's really no reason to keep on rewarding them for bad behavior. Wait and see how this thing goes down.

quote:
This is really quite knee jerk and narrow focused; Ukraine had no legitimate interest in being a nuclear weapons state; it could neither afford them, nor safely despose of them; sell them to who? Who would buy over 1000 Russian nuclear weapons? Who would afford to maintain them? Someone would have to foot the bill and in the end this was only Russia.

And then what, suppose they could maintain 50 war heads, and then what? Do they have delivery systems? Could they have maintained them? Kept those secure? Would they have been able to reach Moscow or Volgagrad? Are you suggesting Ukraine uses nuclear weapons on Russia to prevent the loss of the Crimea? This seems irresponsible policy.

lol. Invading the Crimea doesn't really sound like responsible policy either, does it? But people do crazy things sometimes. Surely you've read enough history to know that.

I don't think you understand the political calculus of nukes at all. Yes, by the way, to most of your questions below. Ukraine had a myriad of delivery systems, from old Russian SS19s to cruise missiles to newer more sophisticated ICBM missiles as well as several types of bomber that could carry a nuke.

And would they threaten a nuke over the Crimea? I don't know, but I bet you Putin would hesitate two or three times before deciding to invade a neighboring nuclear power. That's how nukes work. Why do you think everyone is terrified of Kashmir? It's easy to ask "well gee, they wouldn't really nuke each other over Kashmir, would they?" Except they almost have, a couple of times. Nuclear command and control has been released to field officers during several conflicts over Kashmir. It's the same sort of thing. When nukes are available, they're ALWAYS in play, which is why most nations give serious thought to any action with a nuclear power, because it could always lead to nuclear war.

Why do you think some countries have pushed so hard to get nukes? Look at how nuclear nations are treated vs. non-nuclear nations. It's a trump card that can't be beaten
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
But while you're at it, since the US is suddenly interested in international law for some weird reason, wouldn't this be a great time to deal with a torture prison camp in Cuba, drone strikes in multiple countries, and a military occupation in Palestine? You know, the kinds of violations of international law that the US has full control over? K, thanks.
Yes because either you do the right thing 100% of the time or 0%.
Yeah, I don't know what phrases like "while you're at it" or "Have at it" mean where you're from, but here it means that you can in fact go ahead and do "the right thing."

I'm just reminding you that as a matter of resources that there are on-going situations causing things like torture, have killed thousands, and have displaced people for decades, and are much more cost-effective to address. By not addressing them, you undercut this funny narrative that you're trying to sell about confronting bullies.

It's like if a bully was peeing on your lawn, yeah, we might sympathize. But if you're trying to recruit us to help out, you should probably stop kicking puppies while asking us for help, y'know?

quote:
Drone strikes are conducted with the permission of
the host government generally speaking

That's a weird defence that's been floating around and I can't imagine that Americans would ever accept this if anyone else was doing it.

One of the major charges against Assad in Syria is that he attacked civilians in his own country. Would it somehow be better if he had the Russians conduct drone strikes instead? Would that somehow absolve the Russians of their responsibility? Would it absolve Assad? Responsibility multiplies in these cases, it doesn't divide.

You know, it's strange. There's a great deal of justice in all of these criticisms. We profoundly undermine our moral authority when we torture, when we openly assinate enemies knowing we'll kill a handfuk of civilians when we do it, and when we give aid or don't qualify it to exclude fanatical religious types who want additional land as much for religious reasons as security reasons. Hell, that's just the tip of the iceberg, really.

But goddamned if it isn't tedious as hell to hear all this holier than thou talk from groups and nations that are also themselves nation-states, and all too often just as willing to either sacrifice ethics for expedience-or to sit on the sidelines with an inward domestic focus, looking to or criticizing America for just the right actions taken or statements made. I don't for example recall an awful lot of in-depth aid and support from anywhere, but particularly Western European nations, to give a lot of aid and support to help former Soviet bloc nations get off the Russian tit. Don't recall a lot of international support for massive aid to Palestinians in their homes and out. Haven't heard a lot about international willingness to commit to anything serious-and I don't mean warfare-to deal with an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Don't hear a lot from anyone about 'yes, please, we'll take these suspected radical militants off your hands and incarcerate them for you'.

The dreaming double standard is tedious, Mucus.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
russia even still being in the G8 is kind of ridiculous anyway, and this whole kerfluffle might be a good way to kick them out
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
So if I'm a budding nuclear power, I look at this and see that no agreement written on paper will ever, ever guarantee me the kind of security granted by the threat of nuclear weapons. I'd never give them up.

That's another reason why the world community needs to put Putin in line.

I fully agree that's the lesson I would learn now ... if I was born a week ago or something.

I don't see how any budding nuclear power could be in a situation where they look at Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Libya's experiences over the last few years and not learn that lesson, but then look at Crimea and be like, "that, THAT's the event that will decide it for me."

I think the cat's permanently out of the bag on that one and has been for quite some time.

Well, you're obscuring the point a bit.

And I'm not sure all your examples really hold. Libya had a nuclear program that never made it off the ground. It was still in the "Hm, maybe we should make nukes" phase of development, and what little they had was voluntarily dismantled, for what little good it did them geopolitically.

North Korea's problems extend far and wide beyond its nuclear program. It's run by unpredictable crackpots that starve their people and keep them in third world status dependent on food shipments from others to survive. What lesson are we supposed to draw from their nuclear program that isn't obscured by fifteen other problems?

If anything Iraq is the perfect example of why you need nukes. They were invaded, as you like to point out so many times, on absolutely false pretexts that had nothing at all to do with nukes. Iraq would have been invaded whether the rumors of their plans were true or nor. But if Saddam had actually made nukes, there's no way they would have been invaded. Nuclear powers don't get invaded. Nukes would have saved them, but NOT having nukes wouldn't, since we were bent on invading, we'd have made anything up as a pretext to get in there.

Nukes provide security, and they force the West to treat them differently. Everything else is just a promise on a piece of paper that you have zero leverage to enforce if the other side holding the cards decides to change their minds.

I think you're trying to say "Gosh, these countries all have a horrible time...and they have nukes!" But that's pretty hollow post hoc logic. Iran is the only one really getting the screws put to them just because they have nukes, and I think as soon as they test a bomb, that calculus changes.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
... all this holier than thou talk from groups and nations that are also themselves nation-states ...

I don't feel up to addressing all those issues across all NGOs and all nation-states, when I think my answers would be different for a lot of them. Could you narrow it down a bit?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think you're trying to say "Gosh, these countries all have a horrible time...and they have nukes!"

Say what?

I think you're totally mis-reading me. I was actually agreeing with you on most of it, I was saying that if I was a budding nuclear power, I would totally want nukes to provide security. Thus, most of what you're saying is just confusing. I'm just disagreeing on the timing, I don't think it takes the Crimea situation to create the attitude of wanting nukes, we've got plenty before that.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
You're right, I DID misread you.

I'm so used to you disagreeing with me that I read over parts of what you said.

Sorry about that.

You're right that most of them already know that, it's been reinforced time and again in our dealings with places like North Korea.

But the Crimea is a good reminder, and comes at a time when we're supposedly on the cusp of a deal with Iran.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
The IMF is still insisting on austerity measures such as cutting energy subsidies, it won't be from the IMF.

You don't know if Putin will commit to nuclear war, but we DO know he will commit to a full conventional war if the red line is crossed (Ukraine joining NATO).

Austerity sounds a lot better than being eaten. And I don't think we *should* let the Ukraine into NATO. The Ukraine has way too much history with Russia, and it's too important for Russia to let go. It probably doesn't belong in the EU either. But let it continue to be a sort of autonomous mediator between Russia and West Europe.


This is nice. To Ukrainians this reads as: "let us continue to rape and pillage this country, as we have done for 1000 years.

People in the west of Ukraine want the EU because they remember that their great-grandparents were the ones who didn't starve to death, but could have. We make the mistake of judging the interests of Russia and of the EU with a purely objective, "rationalist," lense. But morally, the EU is not comfortable with the level of brutality that the Russians, and particularly the people in charge of Russia, are. The Ukrainians know this, and they want in on a better roadmap to civilization. They know, especially the younger ones, that the EU is a place that strives, in at least spirit if not always in practice, to be a civilization that is based on the rule of law. Russia is fundamentally not that type of place. It's not terribly complicated on the ground (well it is, but then it isn't).
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
And again, no one is suggesting they dramatically jack up heating prices over night. But a lot of that subsidy money was just plain wasted. It was crony capitalism and giveaways, not direct subsidies to consumers. That part is fine, the part where Yanukovich was paying off gas oligarchs, not so much.

Oh yes. I think people have a hard time grasping the sheer magnitude of institutional graft in Ukraine. When you're talking about money from public subsidies, think in terms of high-end designer fashion markups. 70% of the money that the government spends goes into the pockets of the oligarchs. At one point, Yulia's personal income from gas imports was a sizeable percentage of national gdp in Ukraine.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
The IMF is still insisting on austerity measures such as cutting energy subsidies, it won't be from the IMF.

You don't know if Putin will commit to nuclear war, but we DO know he will commit to a full conventional war if the red line is crossed (Ukraine joining NATO).

Austerity sounds a lot better than being eaten. And I don't think we *should* let the Ukraine into NATO. The Ukraine has way too much history with Russia, and it's too important for Russia to let go. It probably doesn't belong in the EU either. But let it continue to be a sort of autonomous mediator between Russia and West Europe.


This is nice. To Ukrainians this reads as: "let us continue to rape and pillage this country, as we have done for 1000 years.

People in the west of Ukraine want the EU because they remember that their great-grandparents were the ones who didn't starve to death, but could have. We make the mistake of judging the interests of Russia and of the EU with a purely objective, "rationalist," lense. But morally, the EU is not comfortable with the level of brutality that the Russians, and particularly the people in charge of Russia, are. The Ukrainians know this, and they want in on a better roadmap to civilization. They know, especially the younger ones, that the EU is a place that strives, in at least spirit if not always in practice, to be a civilization that is based on the rule of law. Russia is fundamentally not that type of place. It's not terribly complicated on the ground (well it is, but then it isn't).

I'm sorry if it comes across that way. But anyway you slice it Ukraine has a deep Russian identity. For goodness sake Kiev is *in* Ukraine. If you let them into the EU, why not the other former Soviet bloc nations that want in? That makes Russia nervous because then they *will* be hemmed in by the EU. Better to turn Ukraine into a sort of Switzerland. Let's be honest, Russia would never allow Ukraine to leave, but they might be comfortable with something like I suggested, we just have to be prepared to enforce it.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Again, the experiment by which Ukraine exists as its own country has engendered levels of corruption that are, to use an unfortunate comparison, Africa-like in scale and depth.

The Ukrainians know this, and they don't believe in their own abilities to manage the conflicting interests that catapult their political system's scions the heights of corruption that allow their former president to spend 75 Million USD on his residence, while the average wage lingers at 500 USD a month.

For some perspective, that would be like Barack Obama spending 900 Million dollars on his personal residence while president of the US.

We've tried this Ukraine as a state thing. They don't believe in it, and neither does anybody else.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
We've tried this Ukraine as a state thing. They don't believe in it...
I would say that roughly a third of the country clearly does.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Yeah. I'm not sure if 'they don't believe in a Ukrainian" state is the right reaction.

I was under the impression a large reason why they want to grow closer to the EU is that the EU demands the rule of law and other reforms that for them make them less like a Russian kleptocracy and more like a liberal democracy. Clearly a large portion of the population does believe in Ukraine, they just see the need for significant reform.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Ron Paul with some solid and not so solid points about the Ukrainian situation.

Sanctions are an act of war, but so is an invasion of somebody else's sovereign territory.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I agree on the solid and not so solid part.

But the "act of war" line is pretty murky if we're including all sanctions. If you can count any trade law that causes another country economic harm, then we're at war with half the world.

I think Ron Paul is right that actually going to war with Russia over Ukraine is a bad idea. I think he's also right that we shouldn't be footing the massive bill necessary to bail Ukraine out. Europe needs to come up with a lot of that money. He's also right that some of it is a bank bailout...but it's also about securing Ukraine's medium-term ability to borrow to get themselves out of the hole Yanukovich left them in.

But I don't agree that sanctions are acts of war.

I'm iffy on the popular referendum thing. By many accounts, Yanukovich was never the legitimately elected leader of Ukraine. Many think he rigged enough ballot boxes to steal it.

I think his view of what's happening in Ukraine and what happened recently is awfully naive and problematic. What does he think happens to Ukraine if we had done nothing from the start? Or what happens if we do something now? For that matter, what does he think would have happened in Ukraine or Libya if we'd done nothing? Yeah, in many cases things are still a mess, but they would likely have been much more of a mess, with a higher death toll, had we done nothing.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
to try this back to blogs at cloud territory (not that i'm necessarily upset that an absurd anti-obama rant still in some way provokes non-absurd commentary on ukraine)

osc's article literally contains this quote:

quote:
Here's the truth: Big nations always take whatever they want from small nations, unless there's a bigger nation nearby that makes it too costly to do it.
then proceeds to explain how the america-hating left hates america and has no patriotism in part because they collectively apparently don't disagree with that statement, that osc just made, that big nations are always bullies.

think about that, just really think about that
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
OTHER THINGS I WISH TO PICK LIGHTHEARTED FUN AT BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY KIND OF OUTRAGEOUS WHEN PICKED APART SO IT ISN'T FUN AND GAMES ANYMORE [Frown]

quote:
We are a nation founded on ideas, not ethnicity.
See, the idea of the three fifths compromise,

quote:
Why should Putin negotiate with us about anything? Ukraine is none of our business because we don't have the power to make it our business.
Replace Ukraine with Georgia during GWB's administration (haha oh right that happened??) and I'm sure OSC has some sort of invented caveat where it's all like "no, see, that's different, because, something something the liberals"

quote:
The America that said, about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, "This will not stand," is now led by Barack Obama, the worst president in our entire history. In five years, he -- and the American Left -- have had their way, breaking down our strength and turning us into a former superpower.
I love hyperbole! Obama is worst president ever yes even worse than that one that bumbled us into the civil war, eh, i can't even remember his name off the top of my head but who cares there's no way obama was not worse because obama has not already insanely militarily intervened in the crimea, also something something benghazi (take a shot),

quote:
benghazi
take a shot

quote:
some other insane hyperbolic ranting
seriously what even is this
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Clearly it would be much more prudent for Obama to start a war with a nuclear power led by someone who appears to be somewhat insane. Sounds good.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Holiday themed:

quote:
Monday, March 14th -- 10 Most Wanted Day

Albert Einstein was born today in 1879. He was very bright as an imaginative physicist, but was no mathematician. So it is puzzling that his birthday has been designated as Pi Day -- a day to celebrate pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. Oh, wait -- they chose today for Pi Day because it's the fourteenth day of the third month. In America, we note that date numerically as 3-14, and since a course approximation of the value of pi is 3.14, it makes a weird kind of sense.

In Europe, however, where dates are noted numerically in the much more sensible order of day, month, year, the way to get 3, 1, and 4 in order is to choose the 31st day of the fourth month: 31-4.

Unfortunately, because calendars were originally devised by drunk people, the fourth month, April, doesn't have thirty-one days. So I guess Europeans are not entitled to have a pi day at all.

Which makes me wonder -- will pi be resentful of those who don't commemorate it? Will pi become sulky and begin to oscillate in value? Will round things suddenly become elliptical, and ellipses round? Will tires need refilling with air to restore their round shape? Or will even that remedy fail? How does a geometric ratio show its appreciation or lack thereof?

Do we all need to join hands and form a circle and say, "Thank you, pi, for making us round!"? Are there special badges to wear? Should we all inscribe pi on our driveways with chalk?

Or do we just dose ourselves with banana cream, pumpkin, or apple pi?

I think you've summed up the entirety of the holiday in the last sentence. It took a while though-- did you think us scientists, mathematicians and engineers were not human?

FYI- European pi approximation day is 22/7, and the proper Pi day activity is a contest to see who can recite the most digits.

Oh, and if you live near a Safeway, the $5 pis are marked down to $3.14. Usually by this point, the selection is quite picked over, so hurry up!
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
My laptab from Dell, whose screen flips conveniently from laptop to tablet mode, should do the job. I bought it precisely because it should have allowed me to have full access to all my Windows-dependent software, yet also get the graphics interface of a tablet.

Unfortunately, Windows 8.1 got in the way. I've already said enough about that gargoyle.

And there's another problem. To make my laptab light enough to be credible as a tablet, Dell, correctly, used a solid-state drive instead of a spinning drive.

Solid state is faster by orders of magnitude -- you boot in five seconds, bring up programs almost instantly. But solid-state drives are expensive, so we're talking 64 gigs instead of a terabyte. Good-bye to my 250 gigs of music and 150 gigs of audiobooks and Great Courses lectures.

I could work with a small subset of those if I could also plug in additional memory cards. With a single card slot I could plug in another 64 gigs, tripling my available drive space (since Windows itself chews up so much of the built-in "disk").

Fifty bucks more and my machine could do anything I needed.

But ... no card slot.

I know, I can use a USB flashdrive to get the memory I need. Only (a) it's not as fast and (b) it dangles off the tablet like a very weak handle, just begging to be jostled out of place or broken off.

If things are sticking out of it, it's not a tablet anymore. Though I am looking at the SanDisk Cruzer Fit CZ33, which has very little dangling. Maybe that will work well enough.

We're so close to a truly productive in-between machine, with my laptab.

Yeah, but larger SSDs are not that expensive. If it enhances your productivity, the $1300 version with the 256 GB SSD seems rather affordable.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
I tried to put up a Christmas tree in my living room once. I actually didn't even get as far as buying it; after a couple of calls around town looking for a tree salesman the popo kicked down my door and nabbed me for intent to distribute Christianity.

I showed them, though. Every one of those 40 hash marks on the wall of my cell, which the guards simply thought marked each week I'd been locked up, was actually a little cross.

Have faith, brothers: some day we will be the majority, and we will get OUR believers in control of this government, and we will be able to worship openly. Deep down I know it is possible.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Oh dear.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
Oh, boy. Double bubble this week. God and Fox News all in one go? I don't think I want to read the essays, but I know I will.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Fox News, however, hovers right around the middle of the spectrum, covering stories that favor or disfavor either side, without any significant pattern of bias.
again:

quote:
Fox News, however, hovers right around the middle of the spectrum, covering stories that favor or disfavor either side, without any significant pattern of bias.
He genuinely does believe that this is where the center lies; think of the "moderate Democrat" characters from Empire.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
benghazi
take a shot

quote:
Then we'll see that only Fox News, of all the broadcast media, told it like it was. Just as only Winston Churchill warned the British people of the danger that Hitler posed.
finish the bottle
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
Yup. Godwin's law strikes again. Muy original.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Quick journalism ethics question: if the founder of a news organization asks someone to run for president, and also offers that the wealthy owner of said organization would bankroll said campaign, is that okay or not okay? Would you trust that organization's coverage?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
only if it's fox news because, uh, reasons
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
cup runneth over, the other article is basically a guy who tried to keep gays as second class citizens grousing that christians are the real victims of oppression

there is so much i can't i just cant

i can't even go through it point by point even in the most flippant sense
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
OSC:
quote:
But that was back in the old days, when most Americans were openly Christian and we hadn't been beaten into silence by lawsuits by atheists.

I'm shocked that he feels safe posting such a comment, considering the likelihood that he will be sued for it...

quote:
If we try to celebrate our religious holidays openly, we get sued, as if ours were the one aspect of American culture that has no right to exist.
Again, what the hell? When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.

quote:
If we try to rally believers in supporting legislation that affirms our values, we are shouted down for daring to suggest that our faith is a decent grounds for deciding our votes.
Yes. This is true. We live in a liberal democracy (kind of), that is decidedly irreligious. What does he want? To live in Iran?

quote:
Anybody else can demand that their faith be respected -- but not us. Call yourself a Christian, and you have removed yourself from any chance of being taken seriously.
I quote only my favorite line from Jon Stewart, ever:

quote:
“Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.”

 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:
If we try to celebrate our religious holidays openly, we get sued, as if ours were the one aspect of American culture that has no right to exist.
Again, what the hell? When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.

Ironically, OSC is against prayer in school. Or was?

http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/print_friendly.cgi?page=/osc/reviews/everything/2002-11-18.shtml
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The real horror here is that he doesn't think Life of Brian is funny.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
OSC also doesn't think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is funny. (Book, not movie, obviously).

I think he may consider British humor as part of the Libtard/Feminazi conspiracy to warp young American minds.
Or, he and I just have a different sense of humor. Difficult to tell, these days.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.

Also prayer at city council meetings and the like. But otherwise, yeah.

On one of his other points, Christian fiction that can actually hold its own is shelved with regular fiction in most bookstores I know. The stuff that's only published or purchased because of its "Christian" label is in the separate section.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
OSC also doesn't think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is funny. (Book, not movie, obviously).

I think he may consider British humor as part of the Libtard/Feminazi conspiracy to warp young American minds.
Or, he and I just have a different sense of humor. Difficult to tell, these days.

I mean, how could you not think it is funny with quotes like this?

"A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Partly it has great practical value - you can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a mini raft down the slow heavy river Moth; wet it for use in hand-to- hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mindboggingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you - daft as a bush, but very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough.

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: non-hitch hiker) discovers that a hitch hiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, face flannel, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitch hiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitch hiker might accidentally have "lost". What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is is clearly a man to be reckoned with."
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.

Also prayer at city council meetings and the like. But otherwise, yeah.

On one of his other points, Christian fiction that can actually hold its own is shelved with regular fiction in most bookstores I know. The stuff that's only published or purchased because of its "Christian" label is in the separate section.

Ditto for romance novels.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
another double parter from osc

quote:
I’m afraid I have a bit of negativity toward Quebec, but that was earned: What irks me is the double standard, where French must be placed on signs throughout Canada, but inside Quebec, English is removed from signs so that only French is visible.

The same thing irks me about feminism. It’s essential for women to have “a room of one’s own” where men cannot come, so that women can be truly themselves. But any place where men can be by themselves is ruthlessly suppressed, because any male privacy is regarded as a conspiracy against women.

I’m afraid I despise hypocrisy and discrimination masquerading as tolerance.

says the guy who literally made the claim in his article "Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization" that he was showing homosexuals what tolerance really was and it is they who are intolerant

coo

quote:
With the weakest yet most dictatorial President in American history
coo

quote:
Republicans already start out far behind, because the news media will be uniformly against them
yes the news media including the fox news you just championed will be uniformly against them

coo

quote:
But the Republican loathing for Spanish-speaking immigrants has been so virulent that Hispanic voters have no choice but to vote for the Democrats, even though they actually dislike almost every position the Democrats take.
this is a canard that gets gish-galloped out by conservatives constantly but, golly, get ready for a shocker here, — it's not actually true at all. the notion that hispanics are 'naturally conservative' and can be picked back up with an about face (that the republican party would cannibalize itself even just trying to accomplish ever) is a mirage. hispanic voters are against republican economic policies and especially disfavor free-market talk, they have a clear majority in favor of gay marriage (which is not true of republicans), they support the expansion of welfare programs, public investment in the economy, etc.

there's been a lot of talk about this myth but we might as well not do a lot to combat it, because the republicans will sell themselves on it through opinion pieces like this one by OSC, and dive full in on some fundamental misapprehensions of real socioeconomic patterns, because that's what they do, and their strategy on this will stay pretty gigo

works for me
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
The same thing irks me about feminism. It’s essential for women to have “a room of one’s own” where men cannot come, so that women can be truly themselves. But any place where men can be by themselves is ruthlessly suppressed, because any male privacy is regarded as a conspiracy against women.
What? When has this ever happened? Like seriously, how does this even make sense?
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
Yes, because when women protest about, say, men being the only people who are allowed to play at the best golf clubs in the world, but don't protest against women only gyms and train cars, that is just simple hypocrisy.

Women have always oppressed men and tried to stop them having any freedom or autonomy. They see men as objects which they can buy and sell, stop them from getting educations, pay them less for the work they do... It's happening all over the world, right now. But thanks to campaigners like OSC, men are finally having their voices heard. They won't stand for it any longer.

I applaud OSC's bravery in standing up to The Woman and saying 'No more!'. It is quite inspirational.

[ March 29, 2014, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
What? When has this ever happened? Like seriously, how does this even make sense?

well yesterday a bunch of feminists stormed into the men's locker room at my gym and declared it a conspiracy against women. and apparently this happens all the time everywhere. so osc's statement is of course representative of feminism, and not ridiculous.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Guys. I'm trying to allow you all to have the latitude to discuss Mr. Card's writings, even critically.

Nobody has really mis-stepped from a rules stand point, but I feel like were heading there.

I would suggest that if you don't have a clue how Mr. Card arrived at an argument he's made, that you consider asking why he feels that way. You don't actually know what his experiences are and how they've shaped his stances on things.

Who knows? Maybe if you ask sincerely he may actually answer the question, where as if you mockingly question, there's no chance of that. I presume you guys want to understand, not just find occasions to points out how far removed his opinions are from yours and how ridiculous that is.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
Well, personally I'd love it if he would explain what he's talking about. In his article, he gave no information about what he bases his opinion on, simply stated it as fact that women are being hypocritical in wanting their own space, while stopping men from having any privacy to be themselves. It seems to me that OSC expects us to know what he means already and agree with him, but I genuinely do not have the foggiest. And when something seems ridiculous, it's common to treat it with ridicule.

ETA - I feel like I should actually explain where I am coming from here - I would describe myself as a feminist, but I will and do stand up against anyone who treats men unfairly. I don't want women getting anything more than equality. I also object to people tarring all feminists with the same brush, or seeing us as some kind of homogenous mass of angry women. But I will say that places like my previously mentioned female only gyms or train cars, are very often just safe spaces where women can go and avoid men touching them or saying anything hurtful or uncomfortable to them. Whereas I do see keeping women out of my example of elite golf clubs as being a way to stop women from really excelling in what has traditionally been viewed as a male sport.

I don't know if OSC is referring to any of these things, or if he means something completely different - he has not given any information on this. I can't understand or even agree with him - believe me, I hate hypocrisy as much as anybody. I'm happy to change my opinions, based on evidence.

So I'm right here, honestly asking. No more ridicule, if ridicule is the problem here. Please tell me, Mr. Card, what you meant.

[ March 29, 2014, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Nobody has really mis-stepped from a rules stand point, but I feel like were heading there.
how about as a general rule then we never act more sarcastic, sneering, disdainful, dismissive, or contemptuously mocking of osc's positions as osc is often sarcastic, sneering, disdainful, dismissive, or contemptuously mocking of people like liberals, gay activists, scientists who collectively publish things he disagrees are real, various politicians including Obama, feminists, etc

having then allowed him to set the standard for decorum in voicing one's opinion of another person or a set of people and their opinions, and what tones are on the table for having an opinion on them and wishing to voice it, he can then decide whether to leave the myriad questions his articles raise exactly as they are and proffer no public explanation, or he can respond in any way he chooses

i feel this is a better approach than in some direct or indirect way setting a standard that the onus is on others to beseech clarification politely on the subject of his anger and contempt for other people, groups, or ideas. it would suggest an imbalance between the great realms of Dishing and Taking, that generally implicates someone in a not insignificant degree of hypocrisy.

to note also there are more than a number of people who simply have just that — questions, without ridicule. he can respond to them and ignore the ~haters krew~ if he wants, or he can decide that any quantum of haters in the general pile of voiced responses is something he will use to decide not to respond to anything in the general pile. all are valid options imo.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Who knows? Maybe if you ask sincerely he may actually answer the question, where as if you mockingly question, there's no chance of that.
Actually, my question is completely sincere. I really honestly have no idea how he arrived at that viewpoint, and am genuinely curious how he came to that conclusion. I read it over several times, and there is absolutely nothing rude or mocking in my question whatsoever.

That being said, even if I were to, for example, say something like; "Yeah, I can completely understand this. Like, last week when we were having our secret football team practice and a bunch of feminists found out and came by with clubs and Molotov cocktails to 'ruthlessly suppress' us. At least most of us didn't get raped this time. I'm glad someone is addressing this problem!" it would not be out of a desire to mock Mr. Card. It would be me using sarcasm to juxtapose his views with reality, and to illustrate how large of a gap I believe there is between the two.

The only time I've ever personally mocked him or made fun of him, it was again not for the purpose of belittling or insulting him, but to try and point out how far he falls from his own expectations of my generation, and from his idealization of his own, yet despite that he's still a very successful and influential person. If those statements actually hurt his feelings, I would immediately apologize and try and phrase it in a kinder way. But you can't necessarily expect people not to use certain rhetorical devices because they may be too direct or confrontational.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
I do agree that OSC certainly uses a full range of rhetorical devices to get his point across, and I don't really see why we should not.

Indeed, I stand by my previous snark. But I also think BB is right that in this case, we are more likely to get an answer being civil. While I'm not deleting my earlier sarcasm, I would honestly love a real answer and a more full explanation, and very much hope that Mr. Card will eventually provide us with one. My second comment here was from the heart. I'm certainly not upset that Mr. Card does not agree with my views (he is absolutely entitled to believe what he likes, as thankfully are we all) but do feel like I need clarification on this issue not to make a misjudgement on his views.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
As long as we're going mildly overboard...

quote:
Originally posted by OSC, edited for brevity:
So this week, The Produce Box tossed in pea shoots. The idea is to add them to salads for a bit of extra flavor. A hint of pea-ness in the greens. (Try to avoid reading that aloud.) Whole leaves, though small, just don’t work. Here was the real disappointment: We could barely taste them. If I want to have the flavor of peas in my salad, I’ll add peas.

I’m betting someone else must have thought they were wonderful. Just because I don’t like a thing doesn’t mean it isn’t good.

Well, OK, that’s exactly what it means, but I don’t think less of you for liking something I find unlikeable.

OSC finally declares he thinks you're ok if you like to put pea-ness somewhere that he doesn't!

(Hey, he made the joke first.)
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
ahaha, gold star, taking us back to our nonserious roots
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Aside from the shots at the Quebecois, Feminists and Obama, the most recent World Watch wasn't as out there as some of the other essays.

Given the Catholic (clergy)'s hardline on birth control, abortion and gay issues, and that the Hispanic population is largely Catholic, it makes a lot of sense for the "values voters" to have a less hostile stance toward immigration to not alienate people who would otherwise join their crusade.

However, (and perhaps I am biased as someone who does not share these so-called values) I do not think that the Republican party should be buckling down on the regulation of people's private lives, especially if it wants to retain its market share going forward. For one, doing so is deeply counter to the principles of limited government the party claims to espouse. Secondly, young people, even many who call themselves conservatives, and vote Republican, do not share the moral outrage over these same issues. It's also a very large group. There are very few, if any, moderate Republicans in Congress right now. xkcd had a chart a few years back.

So yes, the Republican party does need to rethink a few planks. I just think they are very different ones.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Given the Catholic (clergy)'s hardline on birth control, abortion and gay issues, and that the Hispanic population is largely Catholic, it makes a lot of sense for the "values voters" to have a less hostile stance toward immigration to not alienate people who would otherwise join their crusade.
i will best as i can try to describe the sociological shortcomings of that notion, and it is best summed up with "hispanic conservatism is not white conservatism"

it's a whole crazy kettle of fish but here's the simple part of it:

republican policy designers and strategists are struggling to avoid coming demographic changes that will lead the party into collapse. they have equated and sold the notion kind of seen here where it's presumed that hispanics are in some way 'naturally conservative' and it usually — usually — is a simplistic line item analysis.

and that is pretty much that "hispanics are very catholic" = "hispanics are conservative"

and then they turn "hispanics are conservative" into "hispanics would be ardent Republican voters if not for Republican antagonizing of their kind through the immigration issues"

it's basically an article of faith that greater hispanic religiousness translates into greater Republicanism. but much as how conservatism around the rest of the world hardly resembles what america considers conservatism, the values, both religious and irreligious, of even first generation catholic hispanics does not resemble what it generally does for white american catholics.

GSS data essentially confirms the failure of the idea to match up — hispanics don’t seem to be any more socially conservative than whites; when conservatives presume it because of crossover on elements like religiosity, while ignoring that hispanics greatly do not cross over on Republican cornerstones like homosexual oppression, free markets, reduction of welfare benefits, and big ol' wars in the middle east — they're dropping themselves into a trap of hopeful but extremely cherrypicked beliefs.

i should also note that hispanic populations are doing the same exact identical thing that white populations are doing when you get to the second generation hispanic residents and young hispanics — like every other ethnic group, young hispanics pretty much hate the GOP. young hispanics actually a not insignificant amount more because, well, conservatives are the people that loudly and proudly have people like Joe Arpaio in their fold, passing hideously racist laws that target and malign them in practice.

so sure let's assume the GOP does a full about face and somehow magically manages to cut deep into its own flesh to excise its deeply immigrant-phobic, hostile-to-hispanic tendencies, like a tumor that has metastasized most prominently in places like arizona to the point where it seems just .. blatant. let's assume it just flat out does it soon (it won't). they will be winning back a .. possibly decent majority of old, typically first generation, devoutly catholic hispanics, at the cost of alienating the many conservatives who vote conservative because to them the republicans are the party that has any real interest in beating back the brown hordes. meanwhile young hispanics won't be changing their tune, so .. Pyrrhic victory achievement unlocked?
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Dear god, that GSS link was awful. Do the numbers represent an absolute number of people who agree or disagree (my guess it's "agree" based on the way people with college educations in both groups are more comfortable with women working outside the home), but IT NEVER ACTUALLY SAYS what the numbers mean. Do they represent a percentage? Some questions appear to be groups that DO add to 100, the questions that were mutliple choice should be separated out. How many people were surveyed? I realize their are four variables here, but has the author considered making a graph for this sort of thing? It doesn't lend itself to being a table. What the heck is the GSS, are there any sampling biases in this group? Like they missed old people who can't use the interwebs, or the survey was in English? The author says "So I decided to query non-Hispanic white and Hispanic attitudes to a range of “hot-button” social issues in the GSS." Did he query four or five of his best friends or 500?
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey

He queried a database of sociological information, not any number of his friends.
 
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
quote:
I presume you guys want to understand, not just find occasions to points out how far removed his opinions are from yours and how ridiculous that is.
Now why on earth would you presume that? This forum was taken over years ago by a bunch of trolls who despise OSC and any opinions he has. It's fairly obvious that they have no desire to do anything BUT mock. (What I honestly don't understand is why he continues to give them a platform to do it from . They're basically his antifans.)
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
It's fairly obvious that they have no desire to do anything BUT mock
it's true, the 99% of my posts which have literally nothing to do with orson scott card whatsoever and are instead of all manner of social, political, cultural discussion, entertainment experience, personal experience, or even just the swapping of funny pictures of cats sensing an earthquake are actually all used as an elaborate cover to flimsily cover the fact that I am absolutely one hundred percent solely and singlemindedly here for the sole purpose of mocking orson scott card. i have no idea why i — WE, even — went to the great difficulty of spending the literal almost all but a percentage of a percentage point of our posts on not OSC when it would be so obviously transparent that we were all here, united, with the all-encompassing desire to be trolls to OSC. In fact, we even bothered trying to cover up our trolling by "raising legitimate points" man I really thought that would provide at least some cover.

But, heck, the jig's up, you saw through our ruse, our pathetically transparent ruse, you even found out we literally despise any opinions he has without question. Our deception of agreeing with him sometimes did nothing to conceal that.

Everyone, take off your masks and reveal your scabulous green hides. Yozhik busted us. Damn.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
http://i.imgur.com/JuLszwT.gif

lol look at this catte lol. JOKES ON YOU THIS POST IS ACTUALLY THAT I THINK OSC IS COMPLETELY TERRIBLE (like every post)
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yozhik:
They're basically his antifans.

And when there are two of us mocking at once we are antifanal.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
antifanopodes

a murder of antifans?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'll say two things, one in OSC's favor (sort of), and other against.

1. I can't see him being literally serious...but I do see how he could think male spaces are being pushed back by feminist splash damage. I got into a very long (much longer than it should have been) argument with a friend last weekend over the Bechdel Test. She thinks EVERY movie needs to pass it, and any movie that doesn't is anti-women. I pointed out plenty of excellent movies that failed it and she said they might be good, but they are also misogynistic. Now, I don't think she represents all feminists, or, God willing, even a majority, but she's also not a lone voice. But I think it's stuff like this, and there's a lot of it out there, that make men like OSC feel like they're a bit under attack.

I think a lot of that is just perceived aggression, because he and others are SO rooted in patriarchal normativity that any threat to the status quo is a threat to masculinity. But maybe also a small part of it is overreaching by some feminists to go beyond equality, or to enforce equality to an unnecessary and damaging degree (as in, the Bechdel Test). I think masculine space comes under assault probably much more than it should in our society, in part because male roles are changing more right now than they ever have, and men aren't really well-equipped to deal with that the way women are, because women have feminism, they have a language and system to talk about changes in gender roles. Men do not. And that's partly their own fault, but it's why you see a lot of the angry backlash to feminism.

2. And as someone who is half French-Canadian, I'd have to point out that Card supports the Party that wants to make English the national language, for seemingly the expressed purpose of making life harder for immigrants. Hell, literacy tests for immigrants in the 20s and 30s weren't as hard as what Republicans want to impose. So it seems a little rich to hit Quebec (a land with longstanding separatist bent, its own culture, language, etc) as hypocritical given the people he supports.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Excellent post Lyrhawn. I too find myself frustrated by some of the kneejerk reactions whenever I discuss some of the changing gender norms/ social expectations that have negatively affected men. The response is usually either "it's not nearly as big an issue as x/y/z problem faced by women, so why are you complaining?" (which is true, but just because it's not as much of a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem), or to immediately lump me in with the rather odious MRA/red pill types and dismiss me out of hand without actually bothering to hear the argument. I feel OSC making statements like he did just makes it that much harder for any meaningful dialogue to take place.

[ April 08, 2014, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
 
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
quote:
Card supports the Party that wants to make English the national language
Minor quibble, but Card doesn't support the Republican Party. His writings, as of late, support principles traditionally considered "conservative," and thus in our absurd American 2-party dichotomy, it is assumed that he must support EVERYTHING the Republicans stand for. This column strongly contradicts that notion, as do his occasional rantings against Republican immigration policies. I haven't been able to find Card's exact position on English as a national language, but based on his other writings, I can deduce that it's highly unlikely he's in favor of such a thing.

Also, I happen to agree (mostly) with Yozhik. I've been mostly lurking on this board for years. I lack the rhetorical skills, patience, and time to write well-worded posts that would contribute to the discussion. I sometimes get the nagging feeling that my failure to actively defend the "conservative" side means that I tacitly agree with the points made here, but to engage in a written rhetorical battle would mean a loss of time to do other things that I, frankly, value more. It frustrates me that so many posters on this board, which is paid for by OSC, seem to relish attacking his viewpoints. There is no attempt to seek understanding, no attempt at conciliation, only desire to take down the other guy. Hmm...that last sentence describes the current state of American politics as well. While I won't go so far as to characterize others as "antifans," I have been reading Hatrack long enough to mourn the loss of the moderate viewpoint.

ETA: Dogbreath does make an excellent point with this:
quote:
I feel OSC making statements like he did just makes it that much harder for any meaningful dialogue to take place.
I think that can be applied to most of Card's rhetoric. Sometimes I think he assumes the persona of Demosthenes in his writing, when in real life he's much more like Valentine.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Dogbreath -

The exact two responses you just stated are what I always get hit with too.

It's seemingly impossible to start a dialogue with almost ANY one about changing gender roles for men, because most women seem to not want to talk about it, whether because they don't think it affects them, don't think it's their problem, don't care, or whatever other reason. And men are either uncomfortable talking about it at all, or they slip into anti-feminist rage mode because they don't know how to deal with it.

I think women would be a lot happier and get a lot further in their own goals if they'd open up more forums about men to engage in this discussion. Women in society are an active discussion. You can find on any number of periodicals, websites, news outlets on any given day a discussion about women in the arts, women in the workplace, motherhood, moms balancing work and home life, equal pay, troubles with child care, and various legislative issues pertaining to women.

That's a conversation we're having...but we're not having it in a bubble. Every part of that conversation is a string we're pulling on, and men are on the other end of that string, and their lives will all be changed in large and small ways by this conversation...but they don't seem to make up an active, constructive, meaningful part of it. Nor are they often allowed to meaningfully speak in their own defense without the discussion being shut down by the things Dogbreath spoke of above.

Again, I'm speaking in generalities. There's a larger conversation we're not having as a society, and it affects all of us, men and women alike. And it's all our faults as well, men and women alike, that we aren't having it.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Brian -

quote:
Minor quibble, but Card doesn't support the Republican Party. His writings, as of late, support principles traditionally considered "conservative," and thus in our absurd American 2-party dichotomy, it is assumed that he must support EVERYTHING the Republicans stand for. This column strongly contradicts that notion, as do his occasional rantings against Republican immigration policies. I haven't been able to find Card's exact position on English as a national language, but based on his other writings, I can deduce that it's highly unlikely he's in favor of such a thing.
I'm not sure I can accept that as a meaningful semantic difference. When you sign on to the Republican platform, defend the Republican platform, and demonize Republican enemies as much as OSC does, you don't get to cop out by saying "Oh, but I'm not a Republican!"

At the very least, he shouldn't be surprised when he gets pegged with GOP platform beliefs when he puts as much energy as he does into defending them and attacking liberals.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
does card even really still use the line that he's a Democrat? when was the last time that came up?
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

2. And as someone who is half French-Canadian, I'd have to point out that Card supports the Party that wants to make English the national language, for seemingly the expressed purpose of making life harder for immigrants. Hell, literacy tests for immigrants in the 20s and 30s weren't as hard as what Republicans want to impose. So it seems a little rich to hit Quebec (a land with longstanding separatist bent, its own culture, language, etc) as hypocritical given the people he supports.

As someone who is 1/4 French-Canadian and hasn't been to Canada in 20 years (and the trip was exclusively to visit the rural town my grandmother left), I could have sworn there were both on the stop signs... So I wikipedia'ed it. And the one or the other is a a new thing (because "stop" is a French word), but really you can find all combos everywhere.

And some stop in Canada signs say ... nagaasi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MiKmaqStopSign.jpg
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
French stop signs say Arret. (at least in France)

I go to Canada fairly regularly, but I only make it over to the French parts every couple years for family reunions.

I confess I've never looked at the stop signs in Quebec before.

Edit to add: Apparently they have special stop signs for neighborhoods and communities that are predominantly of another language. That's remarkably considerate.

Edited again to add: So, a quick search on the history of stop signs in Canada shows that they held a language convention and decided that since Stop is a French enough word, having Stop and Arret on one sign was redundant. Since they use the predominant language of the area in which the sign is located, some will say Arret, some will say Stop (within Quebec). Some in other parts will be writtein in Mohawk, other tribal languages, or even Chinese, depending on the community. So I'd say it's fair to claim that OSC is simply misinformed on Canada's stop sign policy.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Well, I was 7. Stop signs were pretty cool back then. And for the next six years bonjour, oui and arrêt were the only two French words I knew. Okay, that's not true: this kid Hailey brought in a beginner French book to recess and taught us all Je m'appelle.

I've been to France twice as an adult and never took in the stop signs. If it weren't for my dad demanding that I come back with pictures of 1. Christmas lights and 2. a stop sign when I went to Japan, it wouldn't have registered for me to look at them at. Of course, I had to ask an actual Japanese person where to find one, because they aren't everywhere, and not obvious because they are not octagons.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
I sometimes get the nagging feeling that my failure to actively defend the "conservative" side means that I tacitly agree with the points made here ...

I don't agree with much else in your post, but this here is a feeling you should never have.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I would say two things about Quebec and sign-age.

I don't think much about the official policy of bilingualism. In the sense of, aside from the three/four(?) years of rather useless French language curriculum in school, it isn't really something that comes up very often. Only government agencies and crown corporations (and some regulated industries) really use both languages with any regularity. But for the much larger private sector, it isn't really a big deal outside of Quebec. I see more Chinese on signs than French.

It is, however, a thing that they legally harass people that use (dominant) English signs (or anything else) in Quebec. In a broader sense, Quebec is probably the most hostile province toward immigrants in Canada and there's some truth in what Card is saying. He's probably not in the best position to make it given that they aren't exactly Republican-hostile toward immigrants, but it is a thing.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
That's my understanding of Quebec as well. There was a story I read the other day about some charter Quebec either just passed or wanted to pass that threatens Canada's reputation for multiculturalism, I can't remember the details now.

I don't know. I live in an incredibly diverse metropolitan area, so I'm a big fan of multicultural society and diversity. But I guess I can see why Quebecois would be especially hostile. A lot of them, the French speaking parts anyway, still express an aspect of being repressed and resent being part of Canada. So for them, not only being not allowed to have their own country for what they see as their own people, heritage, language and culture, they also have to absorb immigrants as well. I might not agree with it, but I can see why they might feel that way. I can also see why French speakers might be hostile to English speakers.

My grandparents left when they were relatively young, but my grandpa still has somewhat strong feelings about it even though he sees himself as fully American.
 
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
 
quote:
I think that can be applied to most of Card's rhetoric. Sometimes I think he assumes the persona of Demosthenes in his writing, when in real life he's much more like Valentine.
You have given me so much hope with this. For years now, I have struggled with the disparate quality of Card's fiction and his political writing. The nuanced understanding of human motivation and ethics in his novels stands in such stark contrast to his deeply unpersuasive political writing that it cannot be coincidence.

I think that you must be right, and that this is some sort of experiment on his part. There are plenty of writers I disagree with who make good persuasive arguments, and a writer of Card's caliber could not seriously write the weak, sophomoric, late-night talk radio dreck I read in the world watch columns.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
Regarding Card and immigration, he has written a couple articles that are very critical of the Republican stance on immigration. In this case, he goes with the Democrat platform.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
Unfortunately, BBegley, it is a well-known effect that even smart people will shut off their brains to maintain a preexisting belief (there's confirmation bias and all the other things mentioned in that initial paragraph: attitude polarization, belief perseverance, illusory correlation, etc.). Anything Card feels he MUST believe (either because he personally wants it that way or because he's invested so much of his life into it [religion]) he will find ways to support, even if they're blatantly irrational or nonfactual.

That includes gay marriage and the Christian (and by extension conservative) persecution complex. I think someone earlier in this thread (or was it another?) duly noted that Fox News exists to feed precisely this effect. Studies repeatedly show Fox viewers are the least informed about actual facts, but facts and rationality aren't what they're targeting...
 
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
 
If this is the case, I will employ my confirmation bias to assume that Card is adopting a persona (like Colbert, but not funny) to make a point. I refuse to believe that someone who has written as long and as well as Card could write that way.

I think the evidence is clear. There are thoughtful intelligent arguments that conservatives can and do convey. The Card whose novels I read could obviously state those very elegantly and persuasively. The fact that he does not do so leads me to believe that he is performing some sort of satire, or attempting to drive people away from the positions he pretends to advocate.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
a "persona?" satire?

no, that's really not what's going on here. nothing in his history supports the idea.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Card's son Geoff has debunked that particular theory personally, IIRC.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
Got 95% of the way through his interesting review of Noah, thinking right about then that for once there hasn't been any obnoxious bigotry (ok, a mild jab at feminists, but at least he qualified that). He was even praising an outspoken atheist! And then:

quote:
Mercy, after all, is not all that common an ideal these days. Certainly there is no grounds for mercy in atheism, which Aronofsky purports to believe: Nature has no mercy in it, and neither has science. Today's politically correct puritans are utterly intolerant and merciless.
And it's even better combined with a later paragraph:

quote:
I call these Judeo-Christian values, because I am reviewing Noah as an adaptation of Genesis. But of course these are all human values, for no human society can long survive without practical implementation of mercy, forgiveness, support for reproduction, and protection of children, in the daily life of the vast majority of human beings.
Atheists: inhuman puritans working (with the gays) to take down civilization!

Some day the Atheists might win and the whole world will descend into the Atheistic nightmare that is currently engulfing Sweden, with its merciless universal healthcare systems and social safety nets, well-educated, healthy children, and happy populace. If we're lucky, God will come along and give all those kids a nice, slow, merciful death by drowning and then He can give his people a third crack at it...
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
saw new article, immediately ctrl+f'ed for "feminist"

was not disappoint

anyway

quote:
In Noah, the Creator definitely has a list of sins that he deplores and condemns, to the point of destroying almost all humans because of their disobedience and wickedness. Today's atheists also have a list of unforgivable sins for which punishment is eternal, so an atheist could be comfortable with that aspect of Noah.
does he actually understand what an atheist is or is he one of those 'atheism is just another faith!' people

what would this list of unforgivable eternally-punished sins be and in what atheist doctrine is it laid out
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
It's probably a snarky reference to the protests against Eich and himself.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
My guess is that it's a very oblique reference to Brendan Eich.

Edit: Heh.. much not be that oblique, eh?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
But of course these are all human values, for no human society can long survive without practical implementation of mercy, forgiveness, support for reproduction, and protection of children, in the daily life of the vast majority of human beings.
yes we have seen what this guy's model for what he thinks governments have to do for human society to survive. support for reproduction, wink so that civilization doesn't collapse, wink yes yes we haven't forgotten either

quote:
Certainly there is no grounds for mercy in atheism
i think everyone should read this particular snippet three times and really think about what he's saying. 'there is no grounds for mercy in atheism' is terminally faulted on a logical level, to say nothing of there being no creed of atheism with which to make this value judgment of atheist beliefs. pretty much even everyone here who is nominally inclined to support osc or are getting sick of his articles being picked apart can see that, or if they can't, it's just an indulgently easy exercise of looking at the myriad of examples in which an atheist worldview is perfectly and often commonly synergetic with mercy. what's the alternative? pretending humanism does not exist as a philosophy?

when this guy is simpering at a group of people who evidently got his goat, it starts to stick out because the generalizations start getting profoundly ridiculous and this is kind of a good little individually packaged example. if atheism really didn't have any grounds for mercy in it (in some impossible structured scenario in which atheism is, itself, a faith) isn't it a little strange that an atheist up and made this movie that he's lauding for being all up ins about the faith? is he trying to be all winky that he's in on aronofsky's secret probably is actually not an atheist, with all this 'aronofsky's purported atheism' ... ? is this how the dissonance is cognitively resolved

WELP there I go again I got all complicated on myself, better dial it back just in case he pulls a snark/satire card on that.

ok, here we go.

quote:
Does Noah contradict scripture? Only in a few spots.
heh
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I think it's useful simply as an examination of ideas to recognize that there is something...off about criticizing a non-religious viewpoint as not having incentives towards mercy and decency. Useful because it contains a possibility that in the given religious viewpoint, these are virtues that only occur when they are incentivized or punished.

But sometimes, some people make me comfortable enough to take it further. Whatever crazy kool aid Card has drunk lately, and seems inclined to continue drinking, *once* he wasn't like this and could actually credit a non-Christian/Jew/conservative with some basic human virtues worthy of praise and even acclaim. If he retains that ability, he sure as hell doesn't write about it.

Anyway, as for someone who has invested a lot of brain sweat into religion, ethics, etc., with Card I'm happy to take it a step further: if a warning against atheism is that it doesn't incentivize decency and mercy, then that is a strange confession for Card to make. Is *he* decent and merciful-when he is-only because it is incentivized? Is he good only she someone is watching?

As for an eternal sin for atheists, well, that is profoundly stupid even by Card' political-religious commentary standards, so I think it's likely just hyperbole.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I think it's useful simply as an examination of ideas to recognize that there is something...off about criticizing a non-religious viewpoint as not having incentives towards mercy and decency. Useful because it contains a possibility that in the given religious viewpoint, these are virtues that only occur when they are incentivized or punished.

This. I just marvel at the un-self-awareness of implying that one's religion is the stick that keeps them from exercising some brutal instinct they are aware of. It really speaks incredibly well of athiests, doesn't it? I'm an athiest, and I am neither violent, nor unjust in my dealings with others. I must be possessed of incredible self-control.

But the best part is to ponder that he's not only talking about the stick, but also the carrot: the implication is that religion is the framework of human morality. So how do I *know* how to act justly outside of that context? Somehow, I just do?

quote:

Anyway, as for someone who has invested a lot of brain sweat into religion, ethics, etc., with Card I'm happy to take it a step further: if a warning against atheism is that it doesn't incentivize decency and mercy, then that is a strange confession for Card to make. Is *he* decent and merciful-when he is-only because it is incentivized? Is he good only because someone is watching?

Well, I think as untenable as that argument is in rational terms, yes, that is the argument he is making. Because when you have economic incentives (like being rich, and white, and wanting things to stay the same for rich white people), you need to get down on taxes, and government, and regulation, and "socialism." You do that by implying that human beings function in purely selfish ways, and that they are not inherently moral. That rationality does not collide with morality- that rationality is base self-interest, rather than enlightened self-interest. Because, if human beings were inherently rational, they would be capable of independently devising a moral system based on rationality. They would not need the church, in the sense that the church would not be stopgap against moral damnation.

This argument has been going on, in one form or another, since the Europeans abandoned the concept of divine-right nobility in favor of enlightenment notions of rationality, and began the long courting period with socialism. Then, as now, the rich and entitled, who were rich and entitled mostly due to the irrational power system perpetuated by the church and the monarchy, will fight against the very notion that people can rule themselves, and are anything like moral beings.

That all has the added bonus of justifying base self-interest as an instinct that human beings should naturally pursue when they are privileged to do so, and not a failing of character. So you get Mitt Romney who simultaneously believes that most human beings are pigs and will take advantage of charity, and acts like a complete pig to take advantage of weak government regulation, and sees no problem in exercising the instinct he ascribes to all people, on a higher level.

Ironic, I know, but that's the game.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
But of course these are all human values, for no human society can long survive without practical implementation of mercy, forgiveness, support for reproduction, and protection of children, in the daily life of the vast majority of human beings.
yes we have seen what this guy's model for what he thinks governments have to do for human society to survive. support for reproduction, wink so that civilization doesn't collapse, wink yes yes we haven't forgotten either

You know, support for reproduction would be a nice touch from the government. Let's start with paid maternity leave and paternity leave as well as subsidies for child care.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
One of the most annoying things about Deconstructionism and Multiculturalism, when they took over university English departments, was that they gave everybody a new vocabulary to use in rehashing every single thing that had already been said about the same old books.

There was almost no new content, and even less that was intelligent. None was intelligible, because the genius of Post-Modernism was that it led to endless verbiage that was both inscrutable and not worth scruting. But because nobody could tell what was being said, or care much even when they did decode it, it allowed an endless supply of new dissertations and papers to be written and published.

In short, without adding even a farthing to the sum of human wisdom, it provided tenure to thousands of dumb people who wanted to pass on their imitation of education to even more thousands of dumb people in want of Ph.D.s.

This is an article about potato chips and corn chips.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Rakeesh: You need to stop calling Mr. Card crazy.

----------

I think part of what Mr. Card is suggesting is that many things people think are artifacts of religion, are actually artifacts of how human beings became human beings (evolution, created like that) and that religion is actually giving expression to those things. It's like having a porcupine that's covered with a blanket and yet the barbs poke through and hurt. But people blame the blanket.

Take away religion, and while the specifics of hell might be gone, you'll still have people that functionally believe in that certain people belong in such a place, and will construct it.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I think part of what Mr. Card is suggesting is that many things people think are artifacts of religion, are actually artifacts of how human beings became human beings (evolution, created like that) and that religion is actually giving expression to those things.

This sounds familiar (did OSC discuss something to this effect in an article in the distant past?) but it certainly can't apply to Card's beliefs now, based on his current statements. If these things (including mercy) are innate artifacts of our humanity, surely atheists would have them too, but he clearly thinks otherwise. Hence my pointing out he called atheists inhuman (subhuman?).

*Of course* all aspects of religion are artifacts of human nature, since humanity creates religion. But these things don't NEED religion to exist; contrary to Card's statement that there is no call for mercy in [some list of things he assumes all atheists blindly worship], there are perfectly rational reasons to encourage certain moral behaviors (and even compel many through a framework of law).

We are all independent entities who bind together in a society for mutual benefit (as a social animal we evolved that way and as a rational animal we can understand the benefits of it). Did God hand down the magic of Democracy to us? No, we developed it over time using our powers of observation and rationality. No less with the smaller interpersonal rules: "Love your neighbor as yourself," aka "treat others how you would like to be treated" (which incidentally includes mercy) is a rational guideline for interacting smoothly with the many other people in your community, not a magic concept that just happens to appear in most religions. We all understand that doing harm to others is bad, because we understand that we do not like being harmed ourselves (we also understand that some people may act selfishly, and we create laws and legal systems to handle it).

But Card seems to believe, based on his latest article, that somehow none of this applies to atheists (and gays, I guess. What does he think about religious homosexuals, I wonder).
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
This sounds familiar (did OSC discuss something to this effect in an article in the distant past?) but it certainly can't apply to Card's beliefs now, based on his current statements. If these things (including mercy) are innate artifacts of our humanity, surely atheists would have them too, but he clearly thinks otherwise. Hence my pointing out he called atheists inhuman (subhuman?).
I would argue Mr. Card believes things like mercy are harder than wrath, and since humans take the path of least resistance, we tend towards wickedness. God based religion (IMO) seeks to change that human tendency and direct them towards modes of living that while better, are hard work and run counter intuitive to many of our instincts.

(Edit, my attempts to summarize Mr. Card's views on atheism were not sufficient). I think Mr. Card would argue atheism does not succeed at this.

I think Mr. Card would argue that a key reason we are in the place that we are in, is not because people are freeing themselves from religion, but rather the opposite. Christianity causes problems, but overall it promotes a better state of human experience, other ideologies can't replicate that success.

I can't really comment on whether any of those ideas are correct, I've honestly never even tried to consider them.

That said, I do absolutely believe that were we to strip away religion, there would be an enormous net negative result. I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.

[ April 10, 2014, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Take away religion, and while the specifics of hell might be gone, you'll still have people that functionally believe in that certain people belong in such a place, and will construct it.
Are you talking about Mississippi?

-------

quote:
I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.
Religion does seem less useful once you take away the presumption of a supreme being, yes. [Wink]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
That said, I do absolutely believe that were we to strip away religion, there would be an enormous net negative result. I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.
As an atheist, I'm going to say that I don't utterly reject that stripping away religion could have some pretty devastating results. It would depend on how and why it was stripped away.

I think an empirical approach to deciding what is true is more likely to help one avoid false beliefs than any religion that I know of, and avoiding false beliefs might be helpful if your goal is to minimize harm. But it might be necessary to replace some aspects of religion with non-religious equivalents in order to avoid a lot of negative side effects that might go along with the end of religion if it's a sudden or forced change.

A simplistic example: daily prayer might have some benefits to mood and stress levels in the average worshiper. If everyone stops praying, it might be necessary to replace prayer with daily meditation of another kind to avoid detrimental effects on stress and mood.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
That said, I do absolutely believe that were we to strip away religion, there would be an enormous net negative result. I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.

You say this with no evidence whatsoever. There's a reason I mentioned Sweden earlier - it is one of the most atheistic of European countries (a whopping 18% of people profess a belief in a god) and there is no dearth of peace, social welfare, or happiness as a result.

Statistically speaking, looking at correlations between atheism and peacefulness and atheism and social welfare among the different nations of the world clearly shows that the more atheistic a country is, the more peaceful and the better the social welfare of its people. Is it because (1) atheism causes peace, (2) peace causes atheism, or (3) a more careful, modern, and rational philosophy causes both atheism and peace?

IMO it's mostly (3) with a little bit of (1), but really the cause/effect relationship is irrelevant to disproving the point that atheism is somehow incompatible with positive social results.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Also, great paternity leave policies.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
That said, I do absolutely believe that were we to strip away religion, there would be an enormous net negative result. I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.
As an atheist, I'm going to say that I don't utterly reject that stripping away religion could have some pretty devastating results. It would depend on how and why it was stripped away.
This. The USSR wasn't problematic because it was atheistic, it was because it was enforced. Official state religions of any kind are a terrible idea.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Even then, I wouldn't say that a state religion-even an enforced one, to some level anyway-would guarantee a terrible outcome from a human suffering and wickedness standpoint.

Brutal, cynical authoritarian/totalitarian systems on the other hand...well they're more or less always a problem.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
That said, I do absolutely believe that were we to strip away religion, there would be an enormous net negative result. I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.

You say this with no evidence whatsoever. There's a reason I mentioned Sweden earlier - it is one of the most atheistic of European countries (a whopping 18% of people profess a belief in a god) and there is no dearth of peace, social welfare, or happiness as a result.

Statistically speaking, looking at correlations between atheism and peacefulness and atheism and social welfare among the different nations of the world clearly shows that the more atheistic a country is, the more peaceful and the better the social welfare of its people.

Nonsense, where are you getting those numbers from?

Why isn't China's GINI coefficient blowing other countries away? Religion isn't even allowed to proselyte there, and atheism has been the majority belief there for decades. I'm willing to place most of the blame on Totalitarianism.

I meant "strip away religion" not "allow people to choose not to be religious." I don't think we're every going to live in a world where everybody voluntarily gives up religion. You're welcome to work towards that, and I'll work towards people voluntarily choosing it.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Here's a paper:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Even then, I wouldn't say that a state religion-even an enforced one, to some level anyway-would guarantee a terrible outcome from a human suffering and wickedness standpoint.

Brutal, cynical authoritarian/totalitarian systems on the other hand...well they're more or less always a problem.

Define terrible. In grad school, I have friends from both Iran and Israel who very clearly pointed to societal problems directly caused by their state-sponsored religion.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
By 'terrible' I mean really bad, but not North Korean bad, if that makes sense. A USSR, a PRC, a whichever-of-propped-up-dictatorships in South and Central America level of bad.

Compulsory religion I regard as universally bad. Even if I thought there was a right/true one, it would still be bad. But then that's probably just my despicable fallen human pride talking.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I meant "strip away religion" not "allow people to choose not to be religious."

You meant forcibly strip it from others, rather than voluntarily strip it from ourselves? That's a bit of a non-sequitur (nothing said in this thread was advocating anything of the sort) but I guess I'm just a bit dense since scifibum apparently made the correct interpretation.

Well don't worry; to repeat myself, nobody is pushing to forcibly take away anyone's religion. An increase in atheism appears to be a fairly inevitable result of society's progressively improving understanding of the world and enhanced ability to care for itself through secular government. I don't need to forcibly strip away other people's religion; each successive generation strips away a bit more all by themselves.

Those who want to stay religious are fine by me, as long as they aren't allowed to *actively* suppress the rights and freedoms of others who believe differently (and in that case they are still free to *believe* what they like).


quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Nonsense, where are you getting those numbers from? Why isn't China's GINI coefficient blowing other countries away?

For my numbers on Sweden, I used Wikipedia, which is citing some polls from 2009 & 2010.

The author of the atheism/social welfare study I was referencing says: "My study improved on earlier research by taking account of whether a country is mostly Muslim (where atheism is criminalized) or formerly Communist (where religion was suppressed)..."

theamazeeaz also supplied a citation, and here is one more that specifically investigated the reason for the effect, which concluded:
quote:
It is quite apparent that there is a strong statistical relationship between state social welfare spending and religious participation and religiosity. Countries with higher levels of per capita welfare have a proclivity for less religious participation and tend to have higher percentages of non-religious individuals. People living in countries with high social welfare spending per capita even have less of a tendency to take comfort in religion, perhaps knowing that the state is there to help them in times of crisis.

 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Those who want to stay religious are fine by me, as long as they aren't allowed to *actively* suppress the rights and freedoms of others who believe differently (and in that case they are still free to *believe* what they like).
I suspect what this really means is "seek to participate and influence society in any meaningful way."

quote:
It is quite apparent that there is a strong statistical relationship between state social welfare spending and religious participation and religiosity.
There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.

quote:
People living in countries with high social welfare spending per capita even have less of a tendency to take comfort in religion, perhaps knowing that the state is there to help them in times of crisis.
That makes sense to me. So does people becoming religious as their religious community reaches out to help them.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I suspect what this really means is "seek to participate and influence society in any meaningful way."

The moment you put words into my mouth is the moment I stop discussing anything with you on this forum.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
IMO, if you need to change laws and force other people to live according to your religion's rules in order to participate and influence society in any meaningful way, then you're doing it wrong. Many religions (including the LDS church) have had and continue to have a tremendous impact on our society without feeling the need to oppress other people. Blackblade: you ducked out of the other thread (you should check it out, tertiaryadjunct) where we were discussing this, but you never really explained why you feel that because we oppose legalized religious oppression, we are somehow keeping you from freely exercising your religion? IMO the best way to ensure religious freedom for everyone is to avoid having any religion start passing laws enforcing religious commandments and doctrines. As soon as you start forcing everyone to live by the rules of one religion, you destroy any sort of religious freedom. (Including that of the state sponsored religion, btw. If you're forced to live by a religion's rules regardless, what virtue is it to willingly choose to do so? That'd be like me claiming to be virtuous and generous because I choose to pay taxes)
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Why isn't China's GINI coefficient blowing other countries away? Religion isn't even allowed to proselyte there, and atheism has been the majority belief there for decades. I'm willing to place most of the blame on Totalitarianism.

I think that this is overstated for the former and wrong on the latter.

For the former, China's gini coefficient doesn't actually "blow away" other countries. It is not good for sure, and something should be done about it. However, the gini coefficient of the US, many countries in South America, and Africa all exceed China (all places that I don't have to tell you are particularly religious).

China is below average, it is not an outlier (i.e. blowing countries away). This is even if we ignore how misleading it is to lump developing countries and developed countries together on this kind of comparison. See the maps here

For the latter, this is wrong on two counts. While there's a lot of debate on the topic and wildly contradictory polling data, it seems fairly clear that the majority of people in China don't actually self-identify as atheists. They usually just identify as non-affiliated or non-religious.

Edit to add: To clarify, you need to lump together the non-affiliated, atheist, and non-religious to reach a majority (>50%). You don't get there with atheists only.

As for how it got that way, for the periods of time accurately identified as totalitarianism (i.e. during the Cultural Revolution) ... well, we've been down this well-trodden road before. If anything, that promoted Mao worship as a religion more than anything else. I'll just link to a previous conversation we've had.
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=055876;p=3#000142

Historically, the non-interest of Chinese people in religion long pre-dates the PRC. I believe it was the Jesuits who reached China in the 17th century or so who observed that while the Chinese were very supersitious, they were not religious.

Or here's another good summary:
quote:
The Chinese have been less concerned with the world of the supernatural than with the
worlds of nature and of man. They are not a people for whom religious ideas and activities
constitute an all-important and absorbing part of life—this despite the fact that there are
nominally more Buddhists in China than in any other country in the world. ... It is ethics (especially Confucian ethics), and not religion of a formal, organized type, that has provided the spiritual basis of Chinese civilization.”

(this was written in 1942, before the PRC even started)
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/594032?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21104004151153

[ April 12, 2014, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Here's another way of observing it way from a different perspective. Since the cross-country polls are pretty poor, here's one conducted in reliable conditions on Chinese immigrants in Canada.

quote:
In general, six in 10 Chinese reported
no religious affiliation in 2001,
compared with only 16% of the total
population. Religious affiliation
varied with the region from which
immigrants originated. Of those who
were born in the People’s Republic
of China, 71% reported no religious
affiliation, as did 58% of those born
in Hong Kong and 48% of those in
Taiwan.

Chinese Canadians: Enriching the cultural mosaic

In other words, the PRC only accelerated the process by 13 to 23% compared to the parts of the Chinese speaking world that skipped the PRC. The bulk of the advantage was already in place.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.

Highly religious people are more charitable givers when and only when you count giving money/tithing to their own church as charitable giving
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
this despite the fact that there are nominally more Buddhists in China than in any other country in the world
... It is ethics (especially Confucian ethics), and not religion of a formal, organized type, that has provided the spiritual basis of Chinese civilization.”

That's like saying Wal-mart is the largest seller of organic food in the United States. In other news, China is also the country with the most English speakers.

Anyhoo, Back in grad school the women's reading group did Huston Smith's "Illustrated World Religions*". It's a downright awful book, and despite the fact that everyone wanted to read it, I was the only one that made it through it. The book contains sections on Taoism and Confucianism, but the two Chinese women in the group said nobody does any of that stuff anymore, and hadn't really heard of much of it AT ALL. Unfortunately, this was all two-and a half years ago, so I don't remember what went on in the particular meeting. We had a lot of book to trash, and I don't remembering drilling forward because they had almost nothing to say about it. I realize the quote is from 1942, but from my infinitesimal sample size of modern China, Confucianism isn't practiced much either**.

*Aside from being extraordinarily boring, it managed to baffle the Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim in our group when it came to their section.
**We read a book about North Korea, and they were a lot more talkative about life in China then. I'll assume they're reasonably aware of what goes on in their country.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I suspect what this really means is "seek to participate and influence society in any meaningful way."

The moment you put words into my mouth is the moment I stop discussing anything with you on this forum.
I'm sorry if I am putting words in your mouth. But I've just had this conversation so many times, I'm a bit jaded with it. It sounds like a great sentiment until you get to the devil in the details as it were.

It seems like invariably it turns into, "If you can't give me a secular reason for doing something voting for it, running a business according to it, raising children with it means your shoving your religion down somebody's throat, and infringing on their rights." But it never works the other way.

Thanks for providing your numbers btw. I'll review them.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Those who want to stay religious are fine by me, as long as they aren't allowed to *actively* suppress the rights and freedoms of others who believe differently (and in that case they are still free to *believe* what they like).
I suspect what this really means is "seek to participate and influence society in any meaningful way."

quote:
It is quite apparent that there is a strong statistical relationship between state social welfare spending and religious participation and religiosity.
There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.

quote:
People living in countries with high social welfare spending per capita even have less of a tendency to take comfort in religion, perhaps knowing that the state is there to help them in times of crisis.
That makes sense to me. So does people becoming religious as their religious community reaches out to help them.

I have to agree with tertiary here. Aside from this not at sol being what he said or suggested, in historic terms it's pretty damn galling for the religious perspective to lecture the secular perspective on free thinking and lack of government crackdowns on thought dissent.

Is there a nation on Earth now, or has there been in history, where religion is in the driver's seat, *and* there was a strong focus on free expression, freedom of religion, and keeping government and religious power separate? We have a hard enough time of that over in the secular world where we are at least nominally outright committed to it. Of the monotheistic religions in all their varieties, how many place individual freedom as their chief virtue? And no, I don't mean 'everyone is free to think about religion in their own way', I mean that same sentence with two key words removed.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
It seems like invariably it turns into, "If you can't give me a secular reason for doing something voting for it, running a business according to it, raising children with it means your shoving your religion down somebody's throat, and infringing on their rights." But it never works the other way.
I'm sorry if it upsets you-I genuinely am-but if suddenly there were a huge influx of conservative Islamic immigrants into the US, sufficient to make a significant power bloc of their own, and they began to use the democratic process to attempt to enact those portions of 'Islamic law' (broad term there) that are unique to Islam, wouldn't you view that as religion being shoved down your throat? Even though it was done in a generally above board way, using the rules lawfully?

In order for a religion to be forced on someone, or simply an aspect of it, it is not necessary for there to be an overt government crackdown. It can happen peacefully, legally, and democratically. The pledge of allegiance for example-that is, the modern religious version. All nice and legal.

No one is suggesting there be a litmus test for appropriately secular motives in political and legislative discourse-that would be an excellent case of a cure being worse than the disease. But when parts of your or anyone's religion get inserted into *my* life, and they lack a secular justification-gay marriage restriction, for example, and I wouldn't even be participating!-then yeah. It's shoved down our throats. I signed up for the American citizen thing, not the Christian American thing. Just because signing up for the former exposes me to the latter doesn't lean I have to simply tolerate it.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.

Highly religious people are more charitable givers when and only when you count giving money/tithing to their own church as charitable giving
So? Areligious people give to an areligious organization, religious people give to religious organizations. How is that worth noting? Does one of those forms of giving not count for some reason?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Rakeesh:
quote:
I'm sorry if it upsets you-I genuinely am-but if suddenly there were a huge influx of conservative Islamic immigrants into the US, sufficient to make a significant power bloc of their own, and they began to use the democratic process to attempt to enact those portions of 'Islamic law' (broad term there) that are unique to Islam, wouldn't you view that as religion being shoved down your throat? Even though it was done in a generally above board way, using the rules lawfully?
Again, the devil is in the details. If they tried to pass polygamy laws and argued that their religion was being infringed upon and that consenting adults should be permitted to form marriages, I would agree with them. If they passed laws requiring that Muslims men and women be permitted to offer prayers 5 times daily and that businesses could not forbid them participating in the call to prayer, I might be amenable to that. If they said pork could not be sold in certain counties "like we have dry counties today" I'm not so sure.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I just don't understand what there is not to be sure about. Banning the sake of pork in a politically defined region, as a matter of public-as in, for everyone forever until the law changes, religious adherent or not-how is that anything less than absolutely unacceptable? I don't care if the county is 98% believer, the county works for the people, not a religion! If they aren't supposed to eat pork, let their leaders instruct them to that effect, and do their own persuasion. They already get an unchallenged first crack at their flock from birth the lasts fr years before there is any real competition. Why do they get the state's overt help too?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
So are you up in arms about dry counties?
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
As someone who doesn't drink, dry counties are pretty stupid, to be honest. I can understand having a dry campus to curb certain social problems after getting bitten by them (or even trying to reduce bar-associated crime).

While you can point to religions where alcohol is forbidden (Mormon), and ones where they drink during services (Catholic), ultimately, how much people care about making laws restricting alcohol depends on how many drunk people regularly appear to pee in one's yard.

However, unlike state lines*, county borders are not really patrolled. Drinking isn't illegal in dry counties (just campuses), just purchase. And most counties are small, relatively speaking. And very few people get drunks on their lawn. Most people do drunk responsibly. So essentially, all that is happening is said county is losing their tax revenue, and local residents are annoyed by the drive, but not that much, because the nearest wet place is probably less than 20 minutes away.

But I don't drink, so I've never been put out enough to protest.

*The police are very much checking people's cars for pot when you leave Colorado.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.

Highly religious people are more charitable givers when and only when you count giving money/tithing to their own church as charitable giving
So? Areligious people give to an areligious organization, religious people give to religious organizations. How is that worth noting? Does one of those forms of giving not count for some reason?
For non-mormons, a large portion of the religious giving probably occurs during the pass-the-hat part of church. But like tithing, most of that money goes to put on the church services the religious giver just enjoyed, as opposed to the general charitable causes that church might take on (the local poor, starving kids in Africa). So in a sense, you were paying the admission cost of the service.

Back when I attended Catholic church, there would be be a "second collection", the cause for which would be announced during mass. So the baskets came around twice. The first time, the money would presumably go exclusively to the church.

To be fair, if you donate to a university, the theater or a political campaign you get something out of it as well (stuff named after you/belated thanks for your life opportunities/ the shows you like continue/ politicians you prefer are the ones making the laws).

We must remember though, areligious government welfare spending in socialist states and church charity for certain impoverished members are not the same thing.

The European-style services are not given out because a citizen is poor. For example, the NHS in Britain is not a charity-- it is funded by the people to serve the people.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.

Highly religious people are more charitable givers when and only when you count giving money/tithing to their own church as charitable giving
So? Areligious people give to an areligious organization, religious people give to religious organizations. How is that worth noting? Does one of those forms of giving not count for some reason?
religious people give money to religious charity, secular charity too, but mostly they just give to their own church.

subtract what they give to religious institutions for the sake of the religious institution's operation, and the religious are less charitable. its just a matter of what donations are actually going to, you know, charity, and not a new wing for new life church or a recruitment campaign in Ethiopia or a new gilded temple or whatever.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
So are you up in arms about dry counties?

No. I drink so little that it can almost be said I don't, and even in dry counties it isn't very difficult to find booze if you want it. It is, to me, a small and easily avoidable petty injustice.

But then, it is small, and if would naturally hit neither of his who drink at all or never very much. So instead, let's say the immigrants are Hindu. Beef is forbidden. I suspect suddenly it's not something to be brushed aside anymore, right? Or they're Amish. No more buttons for you.

Or hey, they're against medicine. No more pharmacies. What, precisely, is the difference? *This*, incidentally, is why secularists like myself are so very leery of religious motivations in politics and lawmaking. Because for all the BlackBlades out there, fundamentally decent and thoughtful and non-intrusive, I can find someone who thinks buying booze on a Sunday is really not a big thing, and should be restricted. The difference is, that person *cares*, a lot, and why shouldn't they? God is speaking to them in some way. They care enough to make it a thing, and all of a sudden I have to start justifying my daily life decisions to some god-botherers who shouldn't have any input at all on that part of my life in the first place.

And if I happen to come along a hundred years after the fact and say, "Hey, this is ridiculous, let's throw this silly intrusive law out', I am absolutely certain to hear about how I'm attacking faith and want to eradicate religion from people's lives. Who will skip the part where I want to eradicate it from *my* life and the lives of any who don't want it in them.

Such a reaction is understandable if short-sighted. After all, the county has been dry for generations! Why raise a fuss? Who am I to kick up a ruckus? Well, if that upsets people, that's simply too bad.

And the worst part? That's what happens with something *trivial* like a dry county.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Rakeesh:
quote:
Is there a nation on Earth now, or has there been in history, where religion is in the driver's seat, *and* there was a strong focus on free expression, freedom of religion, and keeping government and religious power separate? We have a hard enough time of that over in the secular world where we are at least nominally outright committed to it. Of the monotheistic religions in all their varieties, how many place individual freedom as their chief virtue? And no, I don't mean 'everyone is free to think about religion in their own way', I mean that same sentence with two key words removed.
Turkey?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Samprimary: Yes, because every church busies itself with building guilded temples, and sending missionaries to Ethiopia to engage in a little cultural assimilation. None of them run soup kitchens, or donation centers, or shelters, or counseling.

Also, you and I both know that charities of religion and areligious natures waste money. It's not like only the theists gleefully waste what they are supposed to use to help the poor. But I'm all ears if you think there is a charity organization that's doing it better than any of the religious ones.

[ April 13, 2014, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
yes.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
It seems like invariably it turns into, "If you can't give me a secular reason for doing something voting for it, running a business according to it, raising children with it means your shoving your religion down somebody's throat, and infringing on their rights." But it never works the other way.
I've made the argument on this site that laws with no secular justification should be viewed as unconstitutional - originally I argued for an amendment to that effect, I think, but MattP pointed out there's an existing standard called the Lemon test that is more or less the same - but I don't think I have taken the position you're describing here.

It's pretty close - that is, I think if there's no valid secular purpose for a law, but there is a clear religious purpose, it's clearly a breach of the "wall of separation" between church and state - but I wouldn't say that anyone raising their children according to their religion, or running their business according to their religion was necessarily infringing on anyone's rights, so what you're describing doesn't match my view or any view that I recognize as common.

A law that simply propped up some part of their religion without any secular justification though? I agree the devil is in the details, but for the most part - those laws are contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the 1st amendment and don't pass the Lemon test.

Dry counties are a good example of a law that has a secular justification even though it's probably religiously motivated. Alcohol leads to intoxication which leads to public safety hazards; there's a pretty straightforward justification there for banning alcohol sales: trying to limit the bad effects of alcohol in that jurisdiction.

In contrast, a law that bans alcohol sales only on Sunday - I have yet to imagine or hear of a secular justification for that.

So I'm a bit MORE up in arms about the latter than the former, even though the latter is not as restrictive as the former and their root causes are probably the same - the former can at least be justified on a secular basis.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Doctors Without Borders-life-saving charitable work where it is most needed, not for profit, and without the dubiously charitable motive of proselytization.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Or, you know, perhaps the most recognized and respected charitable organization in the world, The Red Cross.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I was saving that one!
 
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
CharityWatch.org has a list of the top-ranked charities on the basis that they "generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve, and receive "open-book" status for disclosure of basic financial information and documents to CharityWatch."

There are a lot of categories. Skimming through, it seems a good representation of both secular and religious-based charities. I haven't done it myself, but it would be interesting to make a list of the "A" ranked charities broken down by whether their main sites cite affiliation with religious organizations or not.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
yeah, there are a whole lot of charities — not just the frontliners for charity efficiency, but a whole uncountable number of them — which are more efficient in general simply by institutionally not having the typical cross-purpose of proselytizing and pr fronting a religion. more of them are also open-book and have transparent accounting, which is very important.

moreover, bb, this is getting away from the important distinction that giving money to your own church isn't giving money to charity, it's giving it to a church. many people conflate the two and innately presume this to be inherently charitable giving, because the church spends part of that money on charity, material or organized charitable support.

With the Methodists, that number is roughly around 25-29%. Churches with non-transparent finances that don't even tell the church's rank and file members where the church donations and tithes go are pretty much always way lower than that. But actively religious people try to add their church donations to their charity donations in a 1:1 equation and then present the resulting data as showing themselves more charitable than non actively religious people. Often they couldn't even tell you how much of their church donations go to charity.

When you stop erroneously relying on this 1:1 equation, it isn't the actively religious who are the biggest givers anymore. they're certainly the less charitable in this country with their voting policies when it comes to public welfare systems, even the most directly charitable poverty assistance programs like TANF and SNAP.

Which is a more important consideration, as individual charitable giving is an almost insignificant portion of actual food, housing, and emergency welfare assistance to the poor.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Charitable giving is a tricky way to measure generosity to society at large. People give to such a variety of institutions for such a variety of purpose that it is all but impossible to account for all the possibilities. Is a woman who lives on the poverty line and gives a pittance to a local animal shelter more or less generous than a wealthy person who donates large sums to her tennis club? What if that tennis club then holds a benefit gala for needy children in Africa?
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
kmbboots, I believe the Bible has a parable or two about that.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Not quite was I was getting at. It is even more complicated than that. Say if three people of equal wealth both gave the same amount of money to charity - one to his church which does some amount of work with the poor so part of his donation goes to that and part to a new roof and another to his alma mater some of which goes to faculty salaries in public policy and some to a new building and some to scholarships and the third gave that money straight to Heifer International?
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
Right, it was only a part of your hypothetical.

I wouldn't rate those as equally generous, given the difference objectives of the organizations involved. And it's also tricky when you consider tax benefits, too. Which I think makes some kinds of donations more suspect than others, especially for donations with a PR slant.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Exactly. Evaluating donations is complicated enough that any "this group is more generous than this group" statement backed up by the amount of charitable donations is almost worthless.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
so now in addition to noting how strange and kind of useless it is to generalize the generosity of religious vs. areligious people (despite how often it keeps happening), it's also strange and useless to extrapolate based on total donation value per individual!
 
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Religious or non-religious, I invite you to participate with me! (What a segue, eh?)
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Rakeesh:
quote:
Is there a nation on Earth now, or has there been in history, where religion is in the driver's seat, *and* there was a strong focus on free expression, freedom of religion, and keeping government and religious power separate? We have a hard enough time of that over in the secular world where we are at least nominally outright committed to it. Of the monotheistic religions in all their varieties, how many place individual freedom as their chief virtue? And no, I don't mean 'everyone is free to think about religion in their own way', I mean that same sentence with two key words removed.
Turkey?
Turkey seems an odd response given that an enforced secular society is one of the biggest sources of friction in Turkey. Push back against the secular government is where most of their political strife comes from, so I'm not sure how it could be argued that religion is in the "driver's seat."

More accurately, religion is attempting a carjacking.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
How exactly could there be an example of a country where "religion is in the driver's seat" and government and religious powers are kept separate? Does "the driver's seat" here mean something other than governmental power?
 
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 
If the people were primarily motivated by their devotion to a particular faith, but the government was secular?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Rakeesh:
quote:
Is there a nation on Earth now, or has there been in history, where religion is in the driver's seat, *and* there was a strong focus on free expression, freedom of religion, and keeping government and religious power separate? We have a hard enough time of that over in the secular world where we are at least nominally outright committed to it. Of the monotheistic religions in all their varieties, how many place individual freedom as their chief virtue? And no, I don't mean 'everyone is free to think about religion in their own way', I mean that same sentence with two key words removed.
Turkey?
Turkey seems an odd response given that an enforced secular society is one of the biggest sources of friction in Turkey. Push back against the secular government is where most of their political strife comes from, so I'm not sure how it could be argued that religion is in the "driver's seat."

More accurately, religion is attempting a carjacking.

No the problem has been that when pro-Muslim candidates have been legitimately elected to office by the people, the military engaged in a coup and handed the reins back to the corrupt losers.

Turkey only started doing better when free elections were allowed again.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I think you may be blending Egypt with Turkey a bit, BB.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I think you may be blending Egypt with Turkey a bit, BB.

I don't think I am. Look up the military memorandum of 1997 in Turkey. Sorry the Wikipedia link I tried to paste here isn't taking.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I actually thought you meant a plotted coup in 2010, and in any event thought you were referring more to recent history. My bad.

I will say, though, that what looks like a secular government in Turkey is...well, different than what would be considered such here.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I think BlackBlade might be thinking about Turkey, just from a rather non-conventional point of view.

Normally, Turkey started doing well when the non-religious Ataturk started many of the things that Rakeesh was referring to, splitting out government and religious power by splitting off the caliphate, freedom of religion, etc. In other words, secularism was in the driver's seat.

However, later as pro-Muslim candidates such as started winning elections (i.e. religion getting into the "driver's seat"), things like free expression, separation of government and religious power got rolled back, and Turkey has been going downhill.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Decades ago, during the first rush of oat-fiber madness, the makers of Cheerios reformulated them to include way more fiber than they used to have. This was back when I still ate the occasional bowl of cereal. The sextupling of oat fiber in Cheerios had the predictable effect.

When that was my breakfast, for the rest of the day I dared not stray far from the small room with many water fixtures. You see, I already was "regular," and therefore this massive injection of oat bran made me "frequent."

Since Cheerios remained a favorite snack for parents to feed their toddlers at church, I wondered if the fiber content had any noticeable effect on the tykes; since we did not us Cheerios as a snack food for babies, we could not make firsthand observations.

It is worth pointing out that 365 brand™ Multi-Grain Morning O's™©® are as alimentarily effective as Cheerios. The makers are very proud of their 15g of whole grains per serving, and tout the O's™© as a "good source of fiber."

This, too, is neither praise nor criticism; it is only an observation. However, for those who may not wish to alter the number of Depends they go through in a day, it is also fair warning.

These 365 brand™ Multi-Grain Morning O's™©® are an excellent snack food. Way better for me than, say, chocolate bars or cheese slices, my other favorite non-popcorn snacks.

And if I were ever to go back to eating breakfasts, I would replace my old Crispix with 365 brand™ Multi-Grain Morning O's™©® and not feel myself cruelly treated by corporate America.

As an added bonus, Whole Planet Foundation, which is tagged as the maker of 365 brand™ Multi-Grain Morning O's™©®, is very package-proud of being involved in issuing micro-loans.

Apparently they discriminate, providing these loans only to women -- God forbid a poor man should need a loan to be able to finance a business that would help him feed his family -- but in this imperfect world I can live with that bit of sexism without calling for a boycott.

The point is that eating 365 brand™ Multi-Grain Morning O's™©® is not only a delicious favor to your taste buds and a fine supercharger to your alimentary system, but also a means of providing microloans to many an "impoverished woman entrepreneur."

Delicious, healthy, and righteous; a fine combination.


 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
What would you posit as an easy shorthand for the product?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Relevant Truman Show clip(slight language warning)
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
I thought Sam was taking issue with the parts about micro-financing and sexism. I guess it wouldn't make sense to highlight all the 365 brand™ Multi-Grain Morning O's™©® if that was the point though...
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
If you want to know why there are microfinance firms who lend specifically to women, read "Half The Sky" by Nicolas Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn.

But the TL;DR is that many impoverished men spend their salaries on alcohol before the money even gets brought home to their wives and children, but women will spend the extra money on their children before buying pleasure items, so there's a big push to give women an independent income stream. Also, when women make their own money, their husbands beat them less.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
I'm well aware of why micro finance loans go to women in general and it seems like a good practice to me even if it is sexist by definition. I was just misinterpreting Sam's post and for some reason I decided to note that in a post instead of keeping the fact to myself.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
This was more of a general "you" directed at the piece, than a "you" in particular.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
If you want to know why there are microfinance firms who lend specifically to women, read "Half The Sky" by Nicolas Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn.
but what about the men?

quote:
What would you posit as an easy shorthand for the product?
I'd have just been calling them Morning O's after one use of the product's full name.

unless someone's cutting me a check, in which case it's up to them what and how many times i must refer to the Mococoa, i guess
 
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
[QUOTE]

unless someone's cutting me a check, in which case it's up to them what and how many times i must refer to the Mococoa, i guess

Yurek Rutz, Yurek Rutz, Yurek Rutz.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
From a review of The Grand Budapest Hotel:

quote:
I doubt that this film will be in contention for any Oscars -- it has been released into the dumping ground where some of the best films are tossed when studio marketing departments decide that they can't sell them either to the public or to the Academy voters.

I think of previous favorite movies like Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day and In a World, which were completely overlooked when award time rolled around.

But Oscar-bait movies tend to follow formulas; The Grand Budapest Hotel is doing things that are not "certifiably cool." That is, this film required great artistry, but artistry of a kind that Academy voters are generally blind to.

Subtle yet difficult acting performances -- like many given in this film -- are completely over the heads of most Academy voters, though most of them are actors themselves.

But that's all right. American actors are so badly trained -- or mistrained -- that they have no idea how difficult it is to bring off a performance like Ralph Fiennes's subtle-yet-farcical tour-de-force in The Grand Budapest Hotel.

It's too bad that OSC didn't take a minute to review Wes Anderson's career and notice that his work has gotten plenty of attention and accolades from the establishment that OSC wants to criticize here. This comes off as willfully blind.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I saw both Moonrise Kingdom and Budapest Hotel in theaters. I liked Moonrise Kingdom a lot more, and when it came out there were cries of Oscar Oscar, but it didn't get any nods, so he's got a point there.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I have admittedly lost track of the extent of what OSC says hollywood is/does but I am mystified by the proposal that american actors are badly trained. do we mean the american actors besides the ones that make it so that americans are both the majority of the categories of greatest film actors of all time AND greatest film actors performing today? I would seriously like to see a proposal that another country is producing better actors overall because if this is true I don't know of it or where it is shown.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
I saw both Moonrise Kingdom and Budapest Hotel in theaters. I liked Moonrise Kingdom a lot more, and when it came out there were cries of Oscar Oscar, but it didn't get any nods, so he's got a point there.

It was nominated for the best screenplay Oscar as well as the Golden Globe best picture award. It may not have won, but it received accolades.

OSC's worry that the movie he likes won't win an Oscar may turn out to be accurate. The problem is that he equates this to proof that Academy voters aren't as good as he is at detecting good performances, and indeed they are poorly trained.

OK, OK - this is all part of the "Uncle Orson" persona - who reviews EVERYTHING, because he is just like your uncle who has an opinion on EVERYTHING. The sweeping statements are just part of the act.

...it's just that that shtick works better for yogurt than for movies. Because he's an author and playwright and screenwriter, so he is in a position to offer serious criticism. So I expect him to do so. The avuncular, closed-mind tone he takes in criticizing movies always seems a little too sincere, unlike, for instance, a pronouncement that anyone who likes Hershey's chocolate is a hopeless Philistine.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
yeah OSC is a serious jerk when he calls them hopeless. major strides have been made in getting the UN to recognize Philistine as an independent territory, which is a big sign of progress.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Didn't realize it had a best screenplay nod. I was thinking more of best picture. They've got five zillion slots now anyway.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Bret Stephens made some interesting remarks in the WSJ.

I'm not which stuff I agree with and what stuff I do not, but I'm amenable to the idea that we must learn how to deal with being offended. I also think schools boycotting speakers is garbage but whatever, we've already had that conversation here.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Whoa there sir. Do you have social justice license to post that? I'm not seeing any trigger warnings for your white cishet gender binary enforcing colonialism. I'm afraid we're going to have to take you in, you've been randomly selected for a privilege check.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
That article is about trigger warnings, but then you mentioned "being offended" and speaker boycotts (general ones or commencement ones).

I think they're two separate topics, albeit related ones. I'd rather not try to discuss both at the same time. Do you prefer to talk about one or the other?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
My forum posting time has been gobbled up, but I'm willing to discuss either.

Why don't we go with speaker boycotts.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Okie-dokie. I apologized because for this one I am going to argue against the students (while I would defend trigger warnings). But I've done a fair bit of thinking about both recently.

I got in a tiff about this one recently on Facebook with some alums of my college who, nearly 25 years later, were still very proud of their commencement speaker protest (that resulted in two speakers and the unpopular one stepping up her speech game substantially). Ultimately, even if the people within the college were satisfied with the outcome, the whole incident looked very very bad to national news (I was moved to comment myself because I'd read about the incident from a memoir of someone who interacted with the unpopular speaker during the time of the scandal, and our college came off really bad).

I can see why some students are uncomfortable with certain people who don't share their views, but honestly, unless the person is flat-out disgraced by some scandal, almost any famous person is qualified to give g-rated life advice to their 22-year-old selves, and can make it moderately interesting. Even when you don't like their politics. Graduation speeches should be short, and most are completely forgettable after they are over and all are clichéd anyway. I even say this as someone who spoke at her high school graduation. But I especially say this as someone who got rained on for four hours straight for her grad school commencement. My parents waved as I walked in and then left to go hide in an academic building with a TV somewhere, and medical showed up with space blankets. People walked as soon as they got their diplomas, the weather was that bad. Anyway, these things are simply not as big a deal as people make them out to be.


Students need to realize that graduations are for the parents, and honestly, a lousy speaker is up there with many minor annoyances that trip up bridezillas on their wedding days. My college had student involvement in the selection process, and frankly, people should get involved before the fact, not after it. And I should hope that people educated enough to earn a college degree know to take any speech with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, the outside world needs to realize that whining about the commencement speaker is traditional if the speaker is even remotely controversial. (How does that quote about people being unable to speak without at least one person hating them go?) In fact, students complained about the speaker for my college commencement, it got mild media attention and the speaker called them out for it during commencement. Sure, there are different degrees of whining depending on the person, but it's going to happen, and probably shouldn't be national news.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I was ambivalent on the whole speaker thing until someone asked me "well, would you not just feel a little bit chastened if, like, Ann Coulter was your commencement speaker?" — yes, even if she was giving g-rated life advice to 22 year olds, it's still Ann Coulter. made the point that this is a pretty important point in time for many families' lives that should not be given to an overly controversial speaker.

Past that though it's dependent upon who is being removed as speaker, and why, and how they got the post in the first place.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Heh, Ann Coulter came to campus (not as commencement speaker) when I was an undergrad, thank you College Republicans. I didn't go, but it was a big stink with the whole thing. Her fee was obscene (and the wealthy parents of the students paid quite a bit of it), she started late, and talked for maybe 45 minutes. People talked about the speech after, and I can't remember what she said. I do remember she started off by calling her audience smart (though it was largely comprised of liberal women) and had the common sense not to say certain things at a women's college. I think she knew that she had to make her points in a way to put people who were not on her side to agree with her, though they were largely unmoved.

The best response to having to sit through an Ann Coulter speech is probably just to bring commencement bingo and giggle at the best parts after the fact.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
That's different than being the commencement speaker, though. And in either case I would think the actual best response is to not sit at such a speech at all and to shame a school for being stupid enough to let someone with a long history of indefensible statements speak at your school.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
It's perfectly acceptable not to go to commencement, but I wouldn't let a lousy speaker ruin my degree party. Laugh about it after. Seriously.

I googled 'Ann Coulter Commencement Speech" and the only article about any school dumb enough to pull that one was dated "April 1". So that answers that one. I'm not sure what university would invite her in earnest, and how many trolls here on the committee.

There's a spectrum of evils a commencement speaker can have and she's on the very far end. Most speakers, even the controversial ones, will be supported by at least some segment of the population, and people can admit that they have recognizable merit for having achieved something, or at least being famous. But she still has a platform because there are people who believe her schtick. I'm not friends with these people, but they do exist.

The protest I had discussed on Facebook was against the wife of a sitting politician. He was neither liberal nor popular and she was known only as his wife. I was in pre-school when it happened, so I don't remember the politician's reign. Compared to what I've heard about the predecessor's terms (and his crazy wife), no one cares enough the guy and his wife in question 25 years later to make any one horrible scandal stick out or make me believe the pair of them did anything but advocate for the other side of the political fence as me in what could be described as an honorable manner. They were not liked well enough to be re-elected.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
On the one hand I feel students have the right to inform the school how they want their tuition dollars spent. They obviously don't have legal power to press the issue, but if I pay tuition, I wouldn't want my school to give some of those dollars to say Ted Cruz if he was invited to give the commencement speech. He's a career politician and those dollars will serve to keep him in that capacity.

But on the other, we all lose when the market place of ideas is cordoned off in anyway. I don't trust the masses (in this instance students) to not go crazy with the idea that imperfect people are not worthy to speak at their schools. Michael Moore spoke at my school and there were huge protests. During the speech people stood up and indicated that they were armed and that he should get off the stage. He managed to get through his speech.

I think overall it's safer to allow all speakers to speak rather than trying to use democracy to pick and choose which speakers may speak.

That said, again I reiterate that I don't think there is anything wrong with students voicing their displeasure at a speaker choice or the fee they are asking for.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Threatening someone with guns in that context is totally out of line. I hope they got arrested.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I'm not sure. Officers definitely got to them right quick, cuffed them, and walked them out. But I'm not sure if they were charged.

Two individuals did it at different times. We also had some Ralph Nader folks who stood up and tried to shout him down, they were kicked out too. The crowd was largely very hostile. I was very impressed (from an objective standpoint) with Mr. Moore's ability to redirect all the booing and take the air out of it.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Michael Moore spoke at my school and there were huge protests. During the speech people stood up and indicated that they were armed and that he should get off the stage. He managed to get through his speech.
jesus, at least the worst coulter had to deal with was risk of getting pied in the face
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Michael Moore spoke at my school and there were huge protests. During the speech people stood up and indicated that they were armed and that he should get off the stage. He managed to get through his speech.
jesus, at least the worst coulter had to deal with was risk of getting pied in the face
It was pretty terrible, people were actually reaching into their jackets like they were drawing a weapon while they shouted at him.

I think Utah has mellowed out a bunch since then, I think that speech was an important moment in defining what kind of school my alma mater was going to be.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Okay, this discussion died. Wanna do trigger warnings?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
You have TWO NEW ARTICLES too!
 
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
 
I'm on the fence about the proposal to remove apostrophes. Given the way people often write texts and emails, it seems as if we're heading in that direction. And if it means I don't have to look at another possessive "it's," I'll at least be happy about that. But it will introduce some other ambiguities in the language. If "we're" becomes "were," you'll have to do a double-take whenever you see either word written, the way we have to do already with "lead" or "sake."

While we're proposing new revisions to grammar, let's take punctuation outside of quotes. Take the sentence above, where I quote "it's." Except this time, there's a period instead of a comma inside the quote. In our copy-paste society, we should consider punctuation in between quotation marks to be part of the original quote; anything part of the encapsulating sentence's own structure, like a period or a comma, should go outside the quotation marks. So I would write "it's", instead of "it's,". A lot of people do this already anyway, but it's still considered an error, because the textbooks on style and grammar were written before computer programming and copy-paste.

Also, in our grammar-of-tomorrow, one-sentence paragraphs shouldn't contain periods at the end, since the period has become a sign of aggression
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I didn't take that one too seriously, to be honest. The paragraph was perfectly readable, msotly lkie the oens wtih the fisrt and lsat letetrs cahnegd but all the letetrs are tehre. I was amused at the pre-emptive strike against hate mail, though. Do people send actual direct hate mail or just post here? [Cool]

Honestly, people claim that homonym spellings are necessary to disambiguate certain sentences, and I'm sure you could come up with great examples (there are numerous ones with punctuation). In most circumstances, context deals with most of them. Otherwise, we'd have terrible difficulty understanding spoken English. As for the others, a reasonably well-educated writer should be aware of potential misinterpretations of sentences and re-write around them.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
I'm on the fence about the proposal to remove apostrophes.

obviously you are not, filthy apostrophe-user

peddle your false apostrophognosticism elsewhere
 
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
quote:
false apostrophognosticism
Sam wins the neologism of the day award.
Your prize? This gently-used portmanteau
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Cryptoapostrophognosticism abounds.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Michael Moore spoke at my school and there were huge protests. During the speech people stood up and indicated that they were armed and that he should get off the stage. He managed to get through his speech.
jesus, at least the worst coulter had to deal with was risk of getting pied in the face
That and... you know. All the death threats?

She gets a lot of death threats. Did you seriously not know that? Or are you just saying that obviously no one would ever go through with them so they're irrelevant to this discussion?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
do you mean death threats while she's speaking, or the ubiquitous death-threats-mailed-to-everyone-with-even-a-moderate-amount-of-celebrity? maybe coulter's different, because of how she sort of also makes death threats and death wishes but whatev

what moore appears to been dealing with was terroristic acts in person by people suggesting the threat that they were going to shoot him, which is afaik much more troubling than anything done to disrupt coulter during a speech.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
now there's How to Train Your Dragon 2, and this, too, is a sequel that brings the original story to fruition.

I haven't read the books these films are based on, so I'm not sure how faithful the sequel was to any of the narratives. I'm inclined to wonder, because Hollywood barely knows how to tell stories about real heroes anymore.

Somehow, Dreamworks Animation managed to give us a story in which the peace-loving hero comes up against a bad guy who doesn't want peace, who relentlessly pursues war, and can only be defeated by having his means of warmaking taken away from him.

Which is, of course, the real goal in every war -- to destroy the enemy's capacity to inflict harm or resist your forces. It was what George W. Bush was heading toward achieving -- removing the safe havens for Islamic terrorists -- when a replacement President came in and undid all of Bush's achievements as quickly as he could. Mission almost totally accomplished now.

But not in How to Train Your Dragon 2. The hero, Hiccup, is several years older -- a more manly jaw, a somewhat deeper voice, a bit of facial hair, and a love interest. A kid's movie, growing up.

But it's a grownup movie in a lot of other ways. Good guys get defeated. Killed sometimes. Bad guys have complicated motivations -- yet can't just be "converted" to the good side with a hug and a few kind words. Hiccup is facing Hitler. He can't be appeased, because he wants war. And so the war goes on, and Hiccup has to find a way to lead his people to victory.

quote:
I was moved by the heroism -- and by the fact that the hero was honored by his people. That so rarely happens -- in our culture, we're much more likely to vilify or marginalize our true heroes.
can it really honestly be said how inane it is that this review nonsequitors "all the problems in iraq are obama's fault" into a review of an animated movie about dragons
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I noticed it as well, but not having seen the movie, I can't tell you how much of a leap the comparison it is.

The review about which chip flavor is best still wins the award for most painful unnecessary nonsequitor into the author's personal politics during a product review.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I have to say, that when I'm sitting down for a long stretch of gaming in the Mechwarrior Universe with Pirhana Games Inc.'s MechWarrior Online, I find myself thinking through how I'm going to pair it.

No, not with wine, dear reader. I know what you're thinking, and I know as well as you that wine is a surat habit that dulls the senses and makes it harder to score those perfect core hits on the stravag inner sphere weaklings.

No, a clear ristar like myself knows to match the proper energy drink with their batchall. When, as is my temperament, I am in the bleeding-edge assault habit, I will be sipping on the finest of Monster Energy Drink in the Khaos or M-80 flavor while annihilating your front lines in a 100 ton Dire Wolf (that's a Daishi to you stravags). If instead I intend to be pairing a more subtle blend of speed, maneuverability, and jump jet capacity that the 75 ton Timber Wolf offers to the battlefield, I will instead be inclined towards the mellower reflex-enhancing buzz of a Mountain Dew Code Red. Does it bother anyone else that so many other pretenders to the throne came after the resounding success of Code Red? It seems like, just like with liberal hollywood, once someone's made an inspired variation on a theme, they have to drive it into the ground with every following twist on the genre -- or, in the case of Mountain Dew, every unnatural color in the spectrum. Hollywood simply just can't function anymore, and is wholly terrible.

More important to your Pirhana Games Inc.'s MechWarrior Online experience, however, requires that I bring to your attention the relatively recent phenomenon of the "flavored corn-chip" snacks which appear to be all the rage with youths. Wisened fogies like myself will remember a simpler time, before everyone got obsessed with overcomplicated flavor options, in which these were mostly unadorned tortilla chips -- and believe me, they certainly worked in that capacity! --, but they have now exploded into an unconstrained mess of half-worthwhile flavors and obvious dead-ends of flavor opportunity. In a way, trying to navigate through all these flavored corn-chip snacks is like trying to find your way through the mess of absolute failures of the Obama administration, and being forced to watch as the absolute worst president of all time simply ruins everything that George W. Bush was going to successfully accomplish in Iraq. Each maudlin, tepid new flavor standing testament to that Obama is simply the most disgusting, incompetent, ruthless dictator of a president ever, prostrating himself before the shrine of the Religion of Environmentalism and its seven lies of Global Warming.

But before your MechWarrior gets as hot under the collar as liberals do when you point out the clear facts about Obama, let me say that there have indeed turned out to be two flavors worthy of consideration! (Let me also recommend that you build a mech with more Clan Double Heat Sinks and stop relying on so many energy weapons. I know environmentalists in the Leftaliban will shriek at you about how ballistic weapons are a nonrenewable resource, but I find it is better to not listen to them in constructing engines of war. Liberals, like their president, have obviously never understood war.) The two types of flavored corn-chip I believe are worthy of pairing are the Doritos Corn Chip Cool Ranch Flavor and the Doritos Corn Chip Nacho Cheese Flavor. Either, I have found, is an excellent pairing with either the Assault or Conquest mode. And, before you say anything, I cannot count how many letters I have received asking for me to explain the difference between the two gameplay settings.

If you find yourself instead in Skirmish mode, my old standby is the Frito-Lay Cheetoes Cheese-Flavored, Puffed Cornmeal Snacks, but these are for experts only, given their propensity to stain vintage Dragonball-Z T-Shirts or Blue Flame wifebeaters (cue the feminist howlings of outrage that I dared recognize the traditional name of this venerated sleeveless strap-t). Make sure that your mother knows the critical difference between the blood-red of the Nacho Cheese Doritos and the lighter orange of Cheetoes when you send her out to provide for the week's meal plan.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
You forgot University English departments....
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
University English Departments are like that time that Hitler caught Obama unprepared at Benghazi ...
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Game of Thrones is one of the most faithful film adaptations ever
in terms of literal adaptation? or what.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
As far as maintaining the tone and feel of the original, I'm guessing. Though IMO, HBO has kind of veered towards making it too brutal - they kill off characters who don't die in the books, just for shock value, and omit a lot of the emotional core of the books that makes you care about the characters in the first place. But this has been my complaint since season 1, and it's actually gotten a lot better in the past few years.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Eh, books aren't films, and they never have been. Maybe certain children's books. Holes, for example is about as long as a book can be and still be a film in its entirety. Books are television serials, and while people have known this before (e.g. James Michener's Centennial, Pride and Prejudice), I think the lesson has really sunk in with Game of Thrones and I hope filmmakers remember to hand over the book adaptations to the tv writers.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Yeah I am generally in the camp that being faithful to a book adaptation can often times be a useless burden. Film is a different medium. The odds of being able to actually literally faithfully translate a book are slim. Adapt, adopt and discard to the full extent of what will make a work work in the environment, medium, and pacing of a series, miniseries, or movie.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I do agree the mini-series is the perfect medium for adapting a book. Book-based movies have *always* suffered, simply due to the way movies are constructed. It's either always awkward and dysfunctional if it's too faithful, or loses too much of the original story for it to really be called an adaptation. OTOH, short stories are the perfect medium to be adapted into movies, and I really wish that happened more often than it does. (Mostly I think the habit of making books into movies is a terrible thing, since it basically cripples the movie from the get-go. Movies do a lot better as original productions.)
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I'm surprised OSC's 20 year-old blew off Jersey Boys and he declared it for baby boomers only. My little sister (same age) has been obsessed with that show ever since she saw it when it came to town. If it comes to somebody else's town and she's there, she has to go see it ... again.

Possibly the best Christmas present I ever bought was when I found a Frankie Valli Christmas album in a used record shop. I don't know why kids today like records so much, but she was also into those at the time. My sister spotted in unwrapped in my parents car (sitting out as to not break it) when they were picking me up from the train, grabbed it, and ran off with it, not even letting it sit under the tree.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
So Boyhood's experiment paid off very nicely. Yet there was still a huge problem that seems insurmountable.

We weren't just watching the kids grow up, you see. We were also watching the world change around them. When filming started, the dust was only starting to clear from 9/11, and when it ended, it was already obvious that Obama was a failed president.

But because each segment was filmed like a diary entry, with the writer (Richard Linklater) only aware of as much as was known about American history at the time, the segments are sometimes sadly dated.

Linklater is, of course, your stock politically zombie-ized Hollywood Leftist, so the main characters, who should have been like normal Americans instead of total conformists, had minds full of pure politically correct drivel.

Linklater makes no attempt to show characters who disagree with him in a fair light. On the contrary, though characters in Boyhood might be complicated in other ways, they are perfect in their compliance with stereotypes.

The only exception is that religious people are not made complete idiots ... but it's a close thing. And the characters we're supposed to know well and care about most deeply are pretty much without any religion, even if they go through the motions to please others.

But Linklater can't help it that he lives in a culture where he never has to think a new thought or try to understand a person who is different from himself. He's as blinded by his environment as any Southern segregationist in 1948.

This is super dumb and maybe the worst review of Boyhood yet, not even joking
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
So am I missing something or is that jab at Obama not even slightly connected to any description of anything in the film.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Not even slightly. In fact, this movie is so apolitical, it's almost overbearing in its even-handedness.

The religious conversion of the father is completely, but totally straight faced. "This is just what people do," is what the film is saying. Not good, not bad, just what happens. The film treats the Afghan war veteran in a similar way. It shows you how he represents himself. He stirs patriotism early on, by talking about how things were for him in Afghanistan in the beginning, and how they could have been better. Then he himself becomes jaded and reveals his powerlessness and torpor. Nothing political in that, really.

I think perhaps this is the passage that raises OSC's ire, but I don't see it. The veteran lionizes the military, and the boy responds well to what he says. Then the vet himself is broken down by his own life. Why is that about politics? Why is that not about human nature?

And the lefty, semi-existential onanism of the main character is, if anything, grating, and intended to show what kids can be like when they're not as smart as they think they are. Linklater makes no attempt to lionize this kind of behavior. He just shows it. The film is almost dispassionate about its characters.

What did OSC want? What could he expect?
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
I would have thought that a film showing the attitudes of people at the time it is set would be a good thing. Portraying the characters as having the attitude to world events years ago that they might have now, would just be anachronistic.

Watching everyone going about in 2008 saying 'Obama will never close Guantanamo, not much will change, the economy will still be crap in six years time and he'll just end up bombing Iraq again...' would look ridiculous to anyone who was alive then. And I didn't think this film was very political anyway.

I don't get what OSC is complaining about here.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
OSC is complaining that linklater wrote characters who weren't immediately prescient of how OSC currently views american politics in the year 2014, and this rustles his jimmies and that furthermore the movie did not lionize and put his american history headcanon on a pedestal for the benefit of the viewers, so linklater is a leftist zombie who wrote total conformists. and don't even get him started about how it is not setting indulgent sympathetic portrayal of religiosity at his feet. also 0bama is completely terrible in all ways and will always be terrible, why can't this article be about that now~~

no i am really not joking at all, that is the most inane and ridiculous thing. i can't even. it's almost like intending parody OF osc. were this latest article the work of a clever performance artist intending to act like OSC losing his marbles, it would not be substantively different.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
You would think in OSC's mind, the irresponsible, not (yet) grown-up deadbeat dad, who is the kind of person who steals other people's campaign signs would be *EXACTLY* the kind of person who votes for Obama. As an Obama supporter, I took it as a bit of an insult but a fantastic portrayal of the left from OSC's point of view.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
quote:
Linklater makes no attempt to show characters who disagree with him in a fair light. On the contrary, though characters in Boyhood might be complicated in other ways, they are perfect in their compliance with stereotypes.
I got the feeling he's complaining most about the angry old get-off-my-lawn-or-I'll-shoot-you conservative dude with the confederate flag.

Which completely ignores the very next person the movie shows: the disturbingly obsessed I-want-Obama-in-a-carnal-way-isn't-he-dreamy chick.

It's almost like if you spent the day going to a couple hundred homes, you'd only specifically remember the few people that stood out...
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Back when I was working on the early stages of the movie Ender's Game with producers who actually understood the character
Shots fired!

Maybe I've missed something but this is the first time I've read him mentioning what he thought about the movie. I'm guessing he didn't like it [Dont Know]
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:
Back when I was working on the early stages of the movie Ender's Game with producers who actually understood the character
Shots fired!

Maybe I've missed something but this is the first time I've read him mentioning what he thought about the movie. I'm guessing he didn't like it [Dont Know]

You would guess incorrectly. He liked it as a film just fine.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Source?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Source?

He told me.

edit: Not gonna lie I'm totally smirking right now. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
I was pretty sure that's what it was.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I was pretty sure that's what it was.

My smirk! It's gone!
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:
Back when I was working on the early stages of the movie Ender's Game with producers who actually understood the character
Shots fired!

Maybe I've missed something but this is the first time I've read him mentioning what he thought about the movie. I'm guessing he didn't like it [Dont Know]

It's surprising in a way. It was bad in ways that he usually praises movies for being. It must have been difficult to reconcile his awful consumerist view of entertainment and take the high ground he had so many long years ago. You know, when he was an artist.

Edit: Oh no, he liked it as a movie just fine. Well my faith in OSC's reliability has been restored.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
I'm a fan of his reviews, except for when he brings politics into his analysis.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Does he not do that ever?
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Well, of the three parts to his current review, only Boyhood involved his political opinions.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I'm a fan of his reviews, except for when he brings politics into his analysis.

I would call them often entertaining, if completely useless to anyone who wants a sense of whether they would like the film. He seems to love picking out arbitrary details to either castigate or praise as brilliant for some arcane "I'm smart because I know this," reason. He strikes me as a bully in that sense, actually- he tries to make people think they're stupid for not picking up on some detail he does, but in truth, he just picks the things to whinge about pretty randomly.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
I don't think he tries to make his readers feel stupid - most of the time, he seems to assume that the people reading are ones who won't identify with the groups that he calls stupid or insane or evil. When they do identify with those groups or at least hold a position that he is attacking, I don't think the bullying dynamic holds - at least I don't feel like OSC can bully me for believing that climate scientists are better suited to understand the science than layman AGW deniers - I just kind of feel like he's being foolish.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
it's that his politics are metastasizing into everything, and his political issues and rhetoric have established this noisome tendency to snake and tendril into his articles on the most remote pretenses or bizarre connections, and it's really super silly? an article about a movie is bam suddenly drunken mumblypeg about how stupid and braindead the Left is and ugh 0bama is worst president ever right? the issues invasion really helped the analysis of the movie be so notably off the wall and blahblah confirmational bias commentary
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Well, of the three parts to his current review, only Boyhood involved his political opinions.

I would be surprised if you could go three columns without an overt and often very out of place calumny against Obama, Democrats, and liberals-or a rousing praise of Bush. If you can got three columns supposedly about a film, restaurant, grocery store, or insulated cup without hearing about what vandals are those who want gay marriage legal, or how much Obama secretly hates America but not really because he's barely hiding it now, well. I'll be surprised and eat some crow.

Seriously, at this rate of descent into reactionary politics I'm half expecting some 'I'm not a Birther, but maybe...' nods before his term is up.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
three? you dreamin man

though i guess i could count
 
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
three? you dreamin man

though i guess i could count

I'm actually tempted to do that as you all have my curiosity up. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
let's just do a cursory look see

i'll just stop when i hit something really weird as i skim, so it won't be exhaustive just an attempt to catch one per

one back: lectures us about the truth of monogamous pair bonding (ell oh ell) and decries the sexual revolution as a bunch of people who proclaimed that anyone who was married or in a faithful relationship is suffering through something unnatural and undesirable

two back: LOOK AT HOW EAGER MURICANS ARE TO BELIEVE ANTI JOOISH PROPIGANDA SURROUNDING ISRALE

three back: 'ultra-left ideologues' prosecute defenders of traditional values (i.e., anti-homo?) literally contains the text "heaven forbid that anyone should try to include a solid grounding in the writings and ideas and accomplishments of Dead White Males -- even though 99 percent of the achievements of Western Civilization spring from them." what oh my god did i read this before and just forget

four back: describes the native american genocide by white settlers as "mutual terror" "completely justified because of savagery on both sides" ... ? well i guess both sides were equally at fault on that one whoopsie no need to go pointing more fingers at the whites for the whole thing after all

five back: idk looks good

six back: froths at straw 'environmentalists' who 'regarded the human population itself as the worst blight on the earth, and therefore opposed saving billions of lives' hahaha ok

seven: i can't load this one

eight: disses five guys, is dead to me. no idk looks good?

nine: can't load. this could be three in a row i bet

ten: he's like, talking about ... like, eggs, right? chicken eggs, and suddenly it's about the leftist media for ridiculing george h.w. bush for being out of touch with the common people, then literally follows that with "when, exactly, was he going to go out and do his own grocery shopping?" hahaha wait what? ok so maybe that's a little weak but it's still, like, i just read that


eleven: oh my god this one dives STRAIGHT into oh screw it I'll just quote it: "Somehow, Dreamworks Animation managed to give us a story in which the peace-loving hero comes up against a bad guy who doesn't want peace, who relentlessly pursues war, and can only be defeated by having his means of warmaking taken away from him.

Which is, of course, the real goal in every war -- to destroy the enemy's capacity to inflict harm or resist your forces. It was what George W. Bush was heading toward achieving -- removing the safe havens for Islamic terrorists -- when a replacement President came in and undid all of Bush's achievements as quickly as he could. Mission almost totally accomplished now. But not in How to Train Your Dragon 2." hahahaha he just spaz segued OBAMA IZ TERRIBUL straight into the middle of reviewing how to train your dragon ok this is kind of like literally like what I parodied him doing a month ago or so. why am i doing this i should be taking a shower

twelve: a electric razor review segues into how schools don't teach people to be critical thinkers anymore or something but who cares this one's fine i think

thirteen: in the middle of a review of @midnight he knickerwads into Slanders Put Out By Some on the Extreme Left and hits all the target points cleanly of his global warming denial, benghazi, and believing obamacare is a failure, very classic example of what we are talking about

fourteen: looks fine

fifteen: looks fine?

sixteen: looks fine??

THAT IS THREE IN A ROW OK RIGHT THERE BAM JUST GOT REKT
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
His latest column:

quote:
Obama’s tendency to frolic on the golf course or play cards while barbarians murder innocent people whom he could have protected is as sickening as “let them eat cake” or fiddling while Rome burned.
Yeah...
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Sam, your ramblings never fail to amuse me.

Write more of them.

(Dance, monkey, dance)
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
His latest column:

quote:
Obama’s tendency to frolic on the golf course or play cards while barbarians murder innocent people whom he could have protected is as sickening as “let them eat cake” or fiddling while Rome burned.
Yeah...
I believe that the recent tally of obama's vacation days had him at 92 total, where george w bush was at 323 total at the same point in his presidency

(yeah, a whole year, about)

hmmmmmm


hmmmmmmmmmmm
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
hhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
http://i.imgur.com/Pk4pEoX.jpg
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
http://i.imgur.com/Pa6ZF5K.jpg
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fHMf_f0o0xM/VBsgHZccWDI/AAAAAAAAAHg/bl0QTd5kK8U/w557-h313/c8iey.gif
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Interesting....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-presidential-vacations/2014/08/15/2aa969c6-2311-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I *was* surprised to hear Mr. Card state that President Bush didn't play golf while men were dying during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That seems logistically impossible.

But maybe I'm misremembering the specific claim.

[ September 22, 2014, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Interesting....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-presidential-vacations/2014/08/15/2aa969c6-2311-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

Yea, but Lou Casacuberta makes a good point in the comments section:

quote:
obama needs to do something period .take a vacation form ding what!?i expect better writing from washingtn post not defending or sounding like obama with excuses with the mr so and so did it too.grow washingtn stop acting like 6 yr olds blaming evryone but your own mothers,obama obama is on obama agenda...healthcare and global warming stuff period..america wants jobs,better ecnomny,a war leader who gets respect and works with others and is liked .a truthful person and open...nt a president who seperates or divides ..like i said we need 1 who brings together not just talk on islam or muslims but we need a united states for all the people president and this obama isnt it ..he creates racial tension and division .politicians afraid of obama removal because of black community ..america is being held hostage ..lawsuits are being perpared ..boehner has his attrney .they will sue obama for overuse power.he deserves no time off period.worst president in history and most hated

 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
There's just too much truth in that comment. It's so much truth it stings my eyes and scrambles my Wernicke's area. It .. agh. ut hurts, my brain .hruts, i see it all nwo??!was so obveos, obama obama is on obama angenda...whres the birth seritfcate, benghazey???worst presedent
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Interesting....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-presidential-vacations/2014/08/15/2aa969c6-2311-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

Yea, but Lou Casacuberta makes a good point in the comments section:

quote:
obama needs to do something period .take a vacation form ding what!?i expect better writing from washingtn post not defending or sounding like obama with excuses with the mr so and so did it too.grow washingtn stop acting like 6 yr olds blaming evryone but your own mothers,obama obama is on obama agenda...healthcare and global warming stuff period..america wants jobs,better ecnomny,a war leader who gets respect and works with others and is liked .a truthful person and open...nt a president who seperates or divides ..like i said we need 1 who brings together not just talk on islam or muslims but we need a united states for all the people president and this obama isnt it ..he creates racial tension and division .politicians afraid of obama removal because of black community ..america is being held hostage ..lawsuits are being perpared ..boehner has his attrney .they will sue obama for overuse power.he deserves no time off period.worst president in history and most hated

Well said!!! Writing "period" and then using a period seems a bit redundant, though.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I *was* surprised to hear Mr. Card state that President Bush didn't play golf while men were doing during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That seems logistically impossible.

But maybe I'm misremembering the specific claim.

I hadn't heard either way. I know Obama golfs with Boehner, so I assume many of his golf games are also "work".
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Presidents don't even really have vacations, anyway. And they take what mental health time and changes of scenery they can, wherever and whenever they can find it.

I guess, and for serious here i'm not trying to push an envelope here i just want to have it out there for consideration, GWB was really pushing that with his 407 "full or partial days" off at the same point in Obama's tenure, and its entirely probable that a case can be made for him being relatively more checked out than other modern presidents, but you can't know, because they stay coy on how presidents manage their time and their expenditures. It is pure conjecture.

So, of course, if we're playing a game of conjecture, you end up with idiot apologists who will make their own conclusions. Bush had over three times as many vacation days as obama and he is a heroic war president hero who was obviously spending his time trimming hedges or nodding off at his ranch expertly crafting anti-terrorist strategy. Obama, with less than a third of that total, is nero fiddling while rome burned and is certifiably the worst president ever and a total failure.

We have to have this turn around to today's utterly ridiculous nobummer commentary about how the president is toodling out playing golf IN A TIME OF WAR (I guess once the united states declares war, presidents can't play golf or do anything recreational ever, even if said state of war is ongoing for over a decade now cool)

This does remind me of something, though. OH. Right. Even though he would probably loOOoooOoove the comparison, Card's being most like a low-rent written word Michael Moore in the way he was really seriously pushing bush's dundery imagery and saying look at these images guys obvs the president is an off the clock fumbling moron. Moore's visual selling of that included, appropriately, the president playing golf! Look guys the president was playing golf what a chunderhead play the video of my pet goat again guys

Where and when bush was being a chunderhead, it sure as hell wasn't for playing some golf in the midst of one of the most pivotal and high stress jobs in the damn universe.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Well, I personally thought it was ridiculous because I've lived and worked at MCBH for 4 years... whenever the president takes his Christmas vacation, he goes and eats Christmas dinner with the Marines at the chow hall there. Every single time. He doesn't really do it for press or publicity reasons, it's usually pretty low key. I met him there in 2010 and was completely surprised to see him - and he's come back every year since. In recent years he actually has them kick out civilians and press and only allows the Marines and Sailors in. (We're the only ones who are supposed to be there anyway) He genuinely cares a lot about military members, and goes way out of his way to shake as many hands, and talk to and thank as many service members as possible everywhere he goes. Seriously, he even remembered my buddy Scott (who made a rather inappropriate political joke the first time he met him) 2 years after the first time he met him, which is pretty insane for someone who meets literally tens of thousands of people every year.

Anyway, when he's out here, he pretty much works the entire time. He goes to the beach with his family and plays golf on base once or twice, and he goes to the gym, but the rest of the time he's still working. I can't really say how much work GWB did in comparison when he was on vacation, but to assume Obama is fiddling while America burns is... inaccurate. A lot of his golf games out here are with admirals/generals of PACOM or local government officials, and are more of "on the go meetings" than pure recreation.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
You're in the military. Obama is defaming your honor and almost literally spitting on your career and sacrifice! Tell me, sir, have you grown so stupid on liberalism that you fail to see how terrible Obama is, or do you secretly loathe it?
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
You're in the military. Obama is defaming your honor and almost literally spitting on your career and sacrifice! Tell me, sir, have you grown so stupid on liberalism that you fail to see how terrible Obama is, or do you secretly loathe it?

You need to work on your troll impression. [Razz]

For starters, turn the grammar down and hyperbole up.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Dogbreath, as a member of the military, what was your reaction to the tea tainted salute?
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
You're in the military. Obama is defaming your honor and almost literally spitting on your career and sacrifice! Tell me, sir, have you grown so stupid on liberalism that you fail to see how terrible Obama is, or do you secretly loathe it?

Oh, don't worry, there are many, many things I dislike about Obama. Just none of them happen to do with how he spends his vacation time or his personal life. He seems like a pretty decent guy personally.

Boots: had to look it up. Um, maybe he was distracted? I once accidentally saluted with a set of keys in my hand, felt like a dumbass.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
What a normal, reasonable, human reaction.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
The only people who would react differently are just trolls. It's not like that was some huge scandal...
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
The outrage has made national news.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/09/23/%E2%80%98how-disrespectful-was-that%E2%80%99-karl-rove-blasts-obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98latte-salute%E2%80%99
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Wow. That did not come up in my Google search.

In my defense though, Fox News and most of the GOP are a bunch of trolls, so I wasn't completely wrong.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
that's amazing, obama would have gotten less crap if he had simply not acknowledged the marines' existence at all as he disembarked

also remember west wing? if bartlett had given a latte salute it would have been considered badass
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
http://i.imgur.com/ZcgDh4a.jpg
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Rove blasted the move as “insensitive,” but asked, “Are we surprised?” He dubbed Obama as a "chai-swillin’, golf-playin’, basketball trash-talkin’” commander-in-chief.
What are they going to do next, make fun of his shoes? I mean, they already did the tie lapel thing...

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
http://i.imgur.com/ZcgDh4a.jpg

Oh come on, that's adorable.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
I mean, they already did the tie lapel thing...
they additionally had their go around with "Obama wears tan suit instead of blue or black: one of, or the worst president ever?"
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
If there was ever any doubt how this Commander in Chief really feels in his heart about our men and women in uniform, this should seal the deal. We have warriors engaged in harm’s way, and he does THIS? The latte salute. And he has the nerve to publish it on his Instagram account. Disgraceful.
this was literally on sen. allen west's site
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
http://i.imgur.com/ZcgDh4a.jpg

He really should have raised the dog's paw to make it salute too.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
that would have kicked the nuts off of the latte salute, for SURE
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
plenty of clouds to yell at today i guess
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Deer whistles? Really?

Those were debunked 20 years ago.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
The reviews for save-a-deer on Amazon remind me of this xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/937/
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
Deer whistles? Really?

Those were debunked 20 years ago.

I didn't even know the things existed until a few days ago.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
I had never heard of such a thing, but a friend told me about Save-A-Deer Whistles.
Let me fix that:
quote:
I had never heard of such a thing, but a PR person from Save-A-Deer Whistles paid me to push their marketing material.

 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
MrSquicky: Mr. Card has stated he is not compensated, and refuses payoffs from companies for the reviews he writes.

Do you have evidence that has changed?

[ October 08, 2014, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
It does seem irresponsible to review a product when you have no way of speaking to the primary function of that product. My Tiger Repelling Rock works great. Sits on my desk quite nicely and I've seen zero tigers since I purchased it.

I don't expect him to do his own tests or whatever, but the review reads like he just read the company's own claims and parotted them without checking any deeper. A little skepticism goes a long way for products making unverifiable claims.
 
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
In reference to deer whistles - it's impossible to verify a specific company's claims, because you can't prove or disprove a negative, nor can you do a scientific study on the matter. So, anecdotal evidence is the only thing you can use. Mr. Card's friend had anecdotal evidence of the product working, and he found the friend's testimonial convincing enough to spend six bucks on a product, in the chance that it may work.

If you're interested in more powerful anecdotal evidence, there's this: The company I once worked for, Missoula Children's Theatre, has a fleet of 45 Ford F150s that travel an average of 15,000 miles a year, all over the United States and Canada. The fleet manager insists on $6 deer whistles on all company vehicles. They haven't had a deer-truck collision in 10 years. Conservatively, that's 6 million miles driven with zero collisions. Does this mean they work? No! But it's another piece of anecdotal evidence, which I said at the onset is really the only kind of evidence possible for this product.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Card-bashing. [Wall Bash]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
You can actually test the claims made, especially because they claim a mechanism which is possible to test. The wikipedia page goes over the criticisms pretty well.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
I have driven a few hundred thousand miles in a highly deer-dense area, with no whistle, and have also hit no deer. Most people I know in similar circumstances have never hit a deer. It's a common enough occurrence to warn about, but not so common that it's likely to happen to any given person.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_horn

You can just google "deer whistle" for more info on why they're completely worthless. It's pretty easy to fact check these sorts of things nowadays...
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
In reference to deer whistles - it's impossible to verify a specific company's claims, because you can't prove or disprove a negative, nor can you do a scientific study on the matter. So, anecdotal evidence is the only thing you can use. Mr. Card's friend had anecdotal evidence of the product working, and he found the friend's testimonial convincing enough to spend six bucks on a product, in the chance that it may work.

If you're interested in more powerful anecdotal evidence, there's this: The company I once worked for, Missoula Children's Theatre, has a fleet of 45 Ford F150s that travel an average of 15,000 miles a year, all over the United States and Canada. The fleet manager insists on $6 deer whistles on all company vehicles. They haven't had a deer-truck collision in 10 years. Conservatively, that's 6 million miles driven with zero collisions. Does this mean they work? No! But it's another piece of anecdotal evidence, which I said at the onset is really the only kind of evidence possible for this product.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Card-bashing. [Wall Bash]

No, you can't prove a negative, but you can disprove a negative fairly easy. For example, by finding Russell's Teapot. Or if you install a deer whistle and still hit deer. Which some of the amazon reviewers have done.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
In reference to deer whistles - it's impossible to verify a specific company's claims, because you can't prove or disprove a negative, nor can you do a scientific study on the matter. So, anecdotal evidence is the only thing you can use. Mr. Card's friend had anecdotal evidence of the product working, and he found the friend's testimonial convincing enough to spend six bucks on a product, in the chance that it may work.

If you're interested in more powerful anecdotal evidence, there's this: The company I once worked for, Missoula Children's Theatre, has a fleet of 45 Ford F150s that travel an average of 15,000 miles a year, all over the United States and Canada. The fleet manager insists on $6 deer whistles on all company vehicles. They haven't had a deer-truck collision in 10 years. Conservatively, that's 6 million miles driven with zero collisions. Does this mean they work? No! But it's another piece of anecdotal evidence, which I said at the onset is really the only kind of evidence possible for this product.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Card-bashing. [Wall Bash]

No, you can't prove a negative, but you can disprove a negative fairly easy. For example, by finding Russell's Teapot. Or if you install a deer whistle and still hit deer. Which some of the amazon reviewers have done.
That doesn't technically disprove it. It doesn't claim to be 100% effective. I think the most scientific way to judge its effectiveness is to have one car with a whistle and one without, and have them drive the same deer-dense roads at the same time of night, altering nights, for a very long period of time. And repeat this experiment in many different areas.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
I have driven a few hundred thousand miles in a highly deer-dense area, with no whistle, and have also hit no deer.

Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
In reference to deer whistles - it's impossible to verify a specific company's claims, because you can't prove or disprove a negative, nor can you do a scientific study on the matter.

Why on earth couldn't you conduct a scientific study on the topic? Specific claims are being made about the effect of the whistle on deer behavior. Those claims could *easily* be tested.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Some people did and they determined that the deer whistles were ineffectual, as were similar products marketed elsewhere as kangaroo collision deterrents
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
:: shock ::
 
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
 
The deer whistle supposedly causes the deer to freeze in place. What if they are standing on the road when that happens?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Well, at least in theory that could give drivers enough time to react. It's harder to avoid a deer that leaps in front of you at the last second than one that you see standing still a few hundred feet ahead.

But that particular effect doesn't seem to hold up to empirical testing.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
see, Obama is tuberculosis
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Obama is an infectious disease see, the parallel is too clear
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
My favorite part of that essay is where he holds up Scott Walker as a guy who does it right.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Not sure what essay you guys are talking about.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
It's the most recent on ornery.org, which is a few months old.
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Obama is an infectious disease see, the parallel is too clear

No, he's arguing that Obama is a symptom of the disease (and the distinction between the disease and its symptoms is very much Card's point). It's an argument I don't find convincing at all, but there's no need to misrepresent it.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Don’t underestimate the role that snobbery plays in shopping. Even well-to-do snobs slip into Wal-Mart occasionally, sometimes in disguise, in order to look at the sad little things that the hoi polloi buy, and to gawk a little at the hoi polloi themselves. There are websites devoted to abusing and ridiculing poor people who shop at Wal-Mart.

(To be fair, I also know a lot of non-snobs who could shop anywhere, but enjoy shopping at Wal-Mart because of the wide selection. A belief in the poverty or bad taste of all Wal-Mart shoppers is merely a symptom of the self-delusion of the snobs. Oddly enough, most people I’ve known who have this snobbish attitude fancy themselves intellectuals and liberals who love the poor. They see no contradiction.)

This annoys me on so many levels as some who is 1. liberal 2. likes poor people (and votes to pay taxes and support programs to improve their lives, even though some people certainly do take advantage of the system) 3. lives in a city that barely has a Wal-mart, and I don't shop there.

1. I take it OSC has never visited said website. I don't particularly care for creepshots, but a vast percentage of people seem to get on that site for wearing clothing that doesn't cover what standard undergarments should, let alone the expanded body area that Mormon underwear does. Outfits that show your butt cost pretty much the same as those that don't and are available at every price point. These people don't care.


2. I'm really curious what the political affiliation of the "people of Wal-Mart" website visitors and submitters are. OSC hates liberals, fine, but I really wish he wouldn't assume that everyone who does something he doesn't like must be liberal. I can assure you that conservative types are equally disgusted by the poor people when they shop there (exhibit A, my dad, who is quite conservative)

3. While you can get cheap consumer goods at Wal-mart, the place is pretty much Sam Vines's boots theory run amok. It's fairly well known that many products have a "Wal-Mart version" designed to allow manufacturers to meet the low per-unit price in Wal-mart's high volume.

Wal-mart is cheap for many things, but it's not necessarily the cheapest at all things at all time , however, their advertising sure has people convinced it's the only store that people could ever afford to shop at and the only way people could buy something. While we're on the subject, not all deals on Black Friday are the best deal of the year, either.

I'm also frustrated because buying used, getting to know your neighbors and sharing things you don't use often, price-booking groceries and following the "the pantry principle", and not eating convenience foods are going to save you more money than simply shopping at Wal-Mart for everything just because it's there.

4. If Wal-Mart actually paid its workers properly, it would save the government billions in wage subsidies (aka food stamps and welfare). The price hike would cost shoppers $12 a year according to the article, but would pump money into the economy as people who can't afford to buy everything they need will buy more things. Also, the Walton siblings have way, way, way too much money for a business that relies on the federal government for their workers' salaries.

So yes, liberals care about the poor, but hate Wal-Mart, because it's not helping them, just appearing to do so.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Walmart has a pretty good thing going for it with the whole thing where it is powerful enough to ensure over time that it creates entrapping wage structures and the government subsidizes its own workers for it.

then republicans and moral majority types respond to minimum wage arguments by thinking and asserting some version of the jobs market that was an obsolete fantasy by, what, 1970 or so?

basically saying that minimum wage jobs are something that people totally cruise on by into better paying career, so long as they're really trying* (*as judged by a filthy rich white upper class republican male with a political career)!

It's like the paperboy route you took as a kid, on your bike, in this charming illusion I have where paper delivery is still something that is still frequently given to kids on bikes, and isn't primarily done by dire straits middle aged people in cars desperately trying to make ends meet and not being compensated for the wear and tear on their vehicle! A world where people largely can still pay their own way through college on a summer job, or get a house young without being a trust fund kid to save them from being bled dry by overheated rental markets, or expect that their job opportunities are going to be anything other than a steady stream of increasingly marginalizing part-time shuffles. If only the dag-gumbed youths and mirlennials would get their bootstraps on in the morning and stop being such a whiny entitled generation!
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
For my part, I am a liberal who can't stand to look at pictures of people at Walmart, because it reminds me of an abused spouse who can't leave, and doesn't realize she is enabling the abuser. I don't live in America anymore, and we don't have the equivalent type of business in Europe because here, people believe that a society of fairness is not compatible with extreme greed.

That and a more traditional culture. There is a great saying among Czechs: "nejsem tak bohatý abych si mohl koupit levné věci." "I am not so rich, as to buy cheap things." The culture is far less focused on material consumerism. And this has interesting consequences: you'll find that people here will wear a coat that might easily account for two months salary. But they might have bought it 15 years ago. Everything is like that.

[ November 05, 2014, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
This annoys me on so many levels as some who is 1. liberal 2. likes poor people (and votes to pay taxes and support programs to improve their lives, even though some people certainly do take advantage of the system) 3. lives in a city that barely has a Wal-mart, and I don't shop there.

1. I take it OSC has never visited said website. I don't particularly care for creepshots, but a vast percentage of people seem to get on that site for wearing clothing that doesn't cover what standard undergarments should, let alone the expanded body area that Mormon underwear does. Outfits that show your butt cost pretty much the same as those that don't and are available at every price point. These people don't care.


2. I'm really curious what the political affiliation of the "people of Wal-Mart" website visitors and submitters are. OSC hates liberals, fine, but I really wish he wouldn't assume that everyone who does something he doesn't like must be liberal. I can assure you that conservative types are equally disgusted by the poor people when they shop there (exhibit A, my dad, who is quite conservative)

A very conservative friend of mine (who was actually just elected state treasurer is Indiana yesterday) absolutely despises Wal*Mart and everything it stands for. She grew up in a small town in Indiana and throughout her career has seen the same scenario played out over and over: Wal*Mart moves into a small town, operates at a loss (because they can afford to do this for *years*) and undercuts local retailers (and increasingly grocery stores too, thanks to Super Wal*Mart), driving them out of business, and ends up employing a quarter of the town's population and gets most of them all on welfare. Because Wal*Mart literally gives classes to it's employees on how to apply for welfare benefits when they first hire on. They've done this hundreds (if not thousands) of times - they roll through small towns previously filled mostly with independent taxpayers and leave a broken, welfare dependent population in their wake. It's perhaps the most bleak, dytopian form of socialism we've seen in America.

Honestly, they're not the only company that has preyed on small towns in this manner, but they're the biggest one to do so. And quite a few conservatives (I mean real, small business, small government, financial independence and the American dream conservatives, which are something of a dying breed) despise them for it.

quote:
3. While you can get cheap consumer goods at Wal-mart, the place is pretty much Sam Vines's boots theory run amok. It's fairly well known that many products have a "Wal-Mart version" designed to allow manufacturers to meet the low per-unit price in Wal-mart's high volume.

Wal-mart is cheap for many things, but it's not necessarily the cheapest at all things at all time , however, their advertising sure has people convinced it's the only store that people could ever afford to shop at and the only way people could buy something. While we're on the subject, not all deals on Black Friday are the best deal of the year, either.

The myth that poor people need to shop at Wal*Mart and eat fast food because they're too poor to do anything else is something my wife and I find immensely frustrating.

For starters, Good Will, Ross, and even TJ Maxx have higher quality and much cheaper clothes than those sold at Wal*Mart, and a better selection too. There's no shortage of high quality used clothing in the U.S. There's something to be said for quality vs. price as well - a pair of $70 jeans (on sale at Ross for like $19.99) will last you 2 or 3 years of hard wear before wearing out.

But also, food. My wife and I live on a fairly tight budget (admittedly by choice rather than necessity), and we budget $600 a month for food. In Hawaii, where food is outrageously expensive. And we eat very well - lots of fresh fish, chicken, fruits, vegetables (of every sort), nuts, berries, greek yogurt, pita, hummus, occasionally steak, etc. If we were to eat more simply (but still be healthy) we could easily live off $400/month. We plan out our meals and shopping trips, we cook most nights (unless we have leftovers), we make everything from scratch as much as possible, and we pack lunches every day. We usually have enough money left over at the end of the month to go out to dinner once or twice.

That ends up being about $3 a meal per person, plus snacks. If we were to eat fast food every day, it'd be twice that. At least.

This also isn't very time consuming, which is another argument I've heard. It takes about an hour to and hour and a half for whoever's cooking, and an hour for whoever cleans up and makes lunch for the next day.(we switch off) I work 60 hours a week and it's not particularly demanding. It also takes about 6 hours a month for shopping, since we plan our shopping trips out beforehand and only go 3 times a month.

It also doesn't take much in the way of resources. A stove, a refrigerator, some utensils, $5 worth of tupperware and a cookbook will suffice.

No, the real problems are the myths (only rich people can afford to eat healthy food), lack of education (how to cook, how to make a budget, what foods to eat, how to plan meals), and most importantly, a lack of neighborhood grocery stores. Who actually has a grocery store within 10-15 minutes walking distance? There's a crappy little mini-mart within walking distance of me, but it's mostly frozen hungry man meals and junk food, and very expensive. The nearest actual grocery store is 3 miles. And I live on a relatively small island. If I didn't have a car and instead had 3 kids, I'd be out of luck. It's kind of hard to fit a grocery cart on a bus.

I remember walking to the grocery store as a kid. It was on the corner of the block. I also remember when most neighborhood grocery stores started shutting down - when huge super stores (like Wal*Mart or Meijer) began selling food. And Wal*Mart, McDonalds, and their ilk have no problem perpetuating the myth that they're the only places with affordable products for poor people because frankly, the more you believe it, the more true it becomes.

All this is to say I think the best way to combat crappy living conditions for people in poverty (aside from helping them get out of poverty) is education. Saying things like "they can't help but eat junk food, it's all they can afford! You snob!" or "They can't help but shop at Wal*Mart, it's all they can afford! You snob!" is not only condescending, but is also incredibly indifferent and fatalistic. As important and noble a goal as raising the overall amount of money available to the poorest among is, I think an equally important (but often neglected) goal is efforts to make life more livable and enjoyable at those low wages. And that means education, that means cooking classes and financial management classes at community centers (and more effective community outreach programs), that means more neighborhood stores and businesses and stricter laws to curtail exploitative corporations, it means better public transportation, more parks, better schools, and safer neighborhoods.

I honestly don't know if wanting those things, or all the hours I volunteered working at a neighborhood community center makes me much of a snob. I don't even know if it makes me much of a liberal. (I certainly didn't think so) But it does in OSC's eyes, and also in the eyes of much of the current Republican party, which is pretty sad. At this point, any observations along the lines of "man, being poor sucks" or "gee, it sure is difficult to buy a house when mortgage rates are literally more than I can pay and still eat" makes me an arrogant liberal or a whining, lazy Millennial.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
A world where people largely can still pay their own way through college on a summer job

I think I've shared this here before, but this is something I often discuss with my father. (Who is actually somehow capable of realizing just how shitty our generation has it, amazingly enough)

When he was in college in the late 60s, his college tuition cost him $600 a semester. He worked a summer job roofing, which paid $6 an hour. It was hard work, but he literally made enough money to pay for an entire year of college in about a month. (200 hours of work)

Tuition nowadays at a good state college costs around $6,000-10,000 a semester. 10-16 times what he had to pay. How many 19 year olds make $12,000-$20,000 for 200 hours of work? How many people with graduate degrees make that much?

He tries to bring this up whenever his buddies are sitting around, "Dave's always bellyaching about his student loans, still living at home with me and Margaret. I tell you, when I was in college I didn't need loans! I paid my own way through school, thank you very much, didn't need any help from mommy and daddy. And we bought our house when I was 25. I tell you, this generation... lazy. Ungrateful. Entitled. It's a real shame."
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Also, minimum wage at the time was $1.25/hour. Even if he had been working minimum wage, he would have been able to pay his entire tuition with 4 months work. Let's say, 3 months full time in the summer and 5 hours a week during the school year. You would have to work 9-14 months full time at $7.25/hour to pay $12-$20,000 in tuition.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
And there's an entire other point about an unskilled laborer being able to make 4x minimum wage, or minimum wage at the time itself being about 25% higher than it is now, adjusted for inflation or...

arrrrrrghfghfgn
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
This might lead one to conclude something crazy, like the idea that a tax policy favored by the extremely wealthy *might not* be necessarily geared towards the betterment and justice to the lower 99.2% of the country. Weird!
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I think we're on entirely the same page on why Walmart is horrible.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
This might lead one to conclude something crazy, like the idea that a tax policy favored by the extremely wealthy *might not* be necessarily geared towards the betterment and justice to the lower 99.2% of the country. Weird!

I wish it did and that laffernomics was a real thing and the rising tide lifted all boats. It would be real easy riding in the us if that were true. It would be so harmoniously effective - the rational self interest of the top level capitalist clan would feed back into national prosperity on all levels.

Oh well.


*goes back to reading the national geographic article about epidemic child hunger throughout the rusted out bones of America*
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
A world where people largely can still pay their own way through college on a summer job

I think I've shared this here before, but this is something I often discuss with my father. (Who is actually somehow capable of realizing just how shitty our generation has it, amazingly enough)

When he was in college in the late 60s, his college tuition cost him $600 a semester. He worked a summer job roofing, which paid $6 an hour. It was hard work, but he literally made enough money to pay for an entire year of college in about a month. (200 hours of work)

Tuition nowadays at a good state college costs around $6,000-10,000 a semester. 10-16 times what he had to pay. How many 19 year olds make $12,000-$20,000 for 200 hours of work? How many people with graduate degrees make that much?

He tries to bring this up whenever his buddies are sitting around, "Dave's always bellyaching about his student loans, still living at home with me and Margaret. I tell you, when I was in college I didn't need loans! I paid my own way through school, thank you very much, didn't need any help from mommy and daddy. And we bought our house when I was 25. I tell you, this generation... lazy. Ungrateful. Entitled. It's a real shame."

I'm over half a decade out of college at this point, but I had what I would consider a decent summer college job: a science REU (research experience for undergraduates, typically funded by the national science foundation, and often very competitive). Dorms were usually provided, and we were to generally work for 10 weeks at 40 hours per week (summer vacation lasted about 12-14 weeks, so typically there was one week between when undergrads left and the seniors graduated, and two-three weeks before the new school year started that I could spend with my family. We were compensated about $4000 for the whole summer.

Nowadays I have a PhD, and no, I do not make a semester's tuition in a month (the low estimate). But it's plenty to live on.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
So you're somewhere in the bottom 97% of Americans, economically speaking. (according to this calculator, where conveniently the 97th percentile ends at $143,705/year) It's all right, though, I am too. The statistics listed indicate that, at most, 0.05% of people under 25 make close to that. For the low estimate. So...

While researching this, most of the results were about median household incomes, which led me to the question: what, exactly, constitutes "middle class?" I mean, I know a lot of people define it by profession, but we live in a world where a lot of white collar professionals and even managers sometimes make less than, say, a guy who does flooring or picks up dead animals on the road. (which my friend made $80,000/year doing, amazingly enough) So I decided to set some criteria:
- Home ownership
- Car ownership (unless you live in a city that actually has good, comprehensive public transportation, as well as grocery and retail stores in walking distance. Like, say, Paris)
- Adequate retirement (either a pension or an IRA)
- Health care
- Basic luxuries. Internet, TV, being able to eat out occasionally, being able to take vacations every year or two.
- About $10-$15,000 extra per child. (For child care, extra food, and other expenses)

So I decided to calculate that for where I live, to see if we qualify as middle class.

The median price of houses in my city is $380,000. I actually live in a very affordable area, but if we move from 2 to 3 bedrooms, the prices jump to over $500,000. But let's say having you have 2 kids and they share a bedroom, so $380,000. Anywhere within a mile or two of the beach and you're paying over a million, but we'll disregard that for now.

With a 30 year mortgage assuming you pay 20% down and have a 4% APR (average for Hawaii), you're making monthly mortgage payments of $1,837.63, or $22,051.56 a year, which is actually pretty decent. I pay only slightly less than that in rent on a postage stamp sized 1 bedroom apartment. (I should really buy a house if I can get a decent job here after I get out of the service)

Utilities will easily add another $500/month to that. (electricity is really expensive) Though a huge number of people have had solar panels put on their roof, so you can cut $350/month off that if you can afford $30,000 or so to get them installed.

So we're at $28,000/year now.

A car loan will cost you $471 for a new car or $351 for a used car, average. More if you're driving a mini-van. Let's assume your family has 2 cars, one used and one new. Plus $400/month for gasoline (it's really expensive here), and another $100/month for insurance, and another $100/month for average cost of tires, oil, repairs, what have you. That's $1,422 a month for transportation, or $17,064/year. You can cut $4,000 or $5,000 off that by owning one of the cars outright, or about $10,000 for both. So it's a lot cheaper to be older, or to have more money starting out. The bus isn't an option, it doesn't go near either of our jobs. (Isn't America great?)

So we're at $45,000 now

As discussed, food for us is about $600/month or $7,200/year. We budget pretty effectively and get military discounts. Let's round that out to $10,000/year for 2 adults. (we're not even accounting for kids yet)

$55,000

Airfares, hotels, and other expenses means any sort of off island vacation will cost you about $5,000 for 2 weeks of vacation. Let's say you go home once a year to visit family.

$60,000

Internet, cable TV, movies, boat rides, waterparks, going out, video games, new clothes, other other simple luxuries. Nothing crazy like horseback riding or skydiving or whatever. Maybe 400/month minimum? Let's say $5,000/year

$65,000

Healthcare. Paid by your employer hopefully. If not (say you own your own business), about $6,000 a year. We won't count it for now, though.

Retirement: 2 IRAs maxed at $11,000, or perhaps $12,000 in 401ks in order to make a livable retirement.

Sooo... bare bones, no frills, $77,000/year after taxes, or about $115,000 before. (Federal income tax is 25%, state tax is 8.25%)

In other words, for 2 people, a household income of $115,000 is what you need to be middle class in Hawaii. Or $100,000 if you own your own vehicles outright, budget really well, and don't travel. $130-$145,000 if you have 2 kids.

Except the median household income here is actually $70,093/year. Whoops. What this looks like in reality is that we have "Ohana houses" where multiple generations of family live together in packed into a single house, and very few people save for retirement, or at all really. They spend all their income just making ends meet.

While it's true that older people do own some property and will pass it on to their children, most of the residential property here is actually owned by a relatively small number of rich white people. And will be inherited by an equally small number of rich white people. When you keep rent high enough that people can't even save enough to make a down-payment on a house, you don't get a lot of new home owners here.

Some cursory research seems to indicate this is true across most of the country - "middle class" household income is about twice what the actual median household income is. Which means that home ownership is becoming increasingly difficult, and the dream of retirement and eventual financial independence mostly unobtainable. The majority of people will live in rental property (or in crippling debt) and work until they die, or until they're too old to work and their kids have to support them.

I know all that has probably been said many times and more eloquently than by me, but it's really, truly frustrating for me to know all of this, when there's a huge number of politicians in this country who still believe that a middle class lifestyle is obtainable for anyone who "just works hard enough" for it, or that it's something the average American family can now achieve. The fact that a huge percentage of voters come from a generation when this actually was a possibility and bullheadedly refuse to believe it's not just "lazy millennial who don't want to work hard" only exacerbates this. And by the time they die off, it'll be too late for my generation.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Yes. The 1950s convinced Americans that American life defined middle class existence. This is why upper class people call themselves middle class, and working class people do the same.

It also had interesting effects on our economy: the mortgage crisis was a result of unrealistic ideas of how many people could live a "middle class," consumer life.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
*nods* That and the massive amounts of credit card debt and vanishing savings. Without a fairly intense restructuring, our current economy simply can't support as large of a middle class as it would like, and I feel the next 20 years or so will see whole suburbs of cookie cutter mcmansions left vacant or re-purposed as multi-family apartments.

This was already happening in Indianapolis when I left in 2009, and I made a decent amount of money renovating houses because of it. Families leaving their large suburban houses en mass to move into smaller, cheap houses near downtown that had been mostly unoccupied since white flight in the 70s.

The security and comfort of a big $300,000 house and large backyard with a grill and a pool in a quiet cul-de-sac a 40 minute drive from your job stops being so appealing when you realize you could live at just about the same comfort level in a $90,000 house that's a 20 minute bike ride from your job. You just have to give up the yard, live around people of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, and walk to a public pool to swim. $300,000 is a lot to pay for status. Which, more than anything else, a suburban house is. A big sign saying "hey! I've made it! I'm living the American dream!" The privilege of isolation.

And I think the main reason why this happens is the rhetoric surrounding class warfare in this country, especially politically. If you're not middle class, you're a failure. You haven't worked hard enough, you're not hungry enough, you're not a go getter. You're lazy. Why do you need a higher minimum wage? Surely if you just applied yourself, your employer would see your worth and you could command a better salary. Why do you need welfare? Why don't you get a job and pay your own way instead of asking for handouts. I think in many ways it's coming from rich people with guilty consciouses trying to justify their wealth by pretending that everyone not as fortunate is simply lazier, but the biggest impact it has is on the working class: "if you're working class, you're a failure." It doesn't help that many politicians are hell bent on making poverty in this country as miserable as possible, supposedly with the oh-so-noble goal of "motivating" poor people to succeed.

So you see people living unsustainable lifestyles with increasing indebtedness every year to prove to themselves that they aren't failures, when they might actually be happier and more successful overall living within their means in a smaller place without that car, or big screen TV, or living room furniture set. Everyone is so focused on moving up socially, no one seems to really care any more about making where you're at more comfortable and livable.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Anyway, I apologize for all the ranting. As of late, I've found myself being pressured (by job offers, superiors at work, family, friends, and society) into the sort of middle class job and lifestyle I never really wanted. I suppose I'm having my midlife crisis about 25 years early, if that makes sense. I've always been precocious like that.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
$500/mo? For electricity?

For a 2 bedroom apt, that presumably has neither heat nor ac (my understanding is it's never boiling hot in HI?

I will grant that air-drying clothes probably will not work.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
No, $500/mo for utilities, including electricity. For a house. (We don't spend near $500/mo on utilities) Water and sewer are also expensive, as is garbage. Also, a lot of the things that are done with natural gas in the mainland (like hot water heaters, stoves, etc.) are all electrical here. It adds up.

You're correct in assuming that most houses here don't have air conditioning. It's not necessary, as it almost never gets about 85 degrees or so outside. (It's almost noon here, and it's currently 78 degrees inside my house with a nice breeze blowing. We literally only close our windows during hurricanes) It's also insanely expensive to run air conditioning.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
The security and comfort of a big $300,000 house and large backyard with a grill and a pool in a quiet cul-de-sac a 40 minute drive from your job stops being so appealing when you realize you could live at just about the same comfort level in a $90,000 house that's a 20 minute bike ride from your job.
So I'm in Texas, not Hawaii, but we're house hunting at the moment. It just so happens that anything near where I work or any of the business centers where most the jobs are is way more expensive than a house out in the suburbs. If you want to be within a 20 minute bike ride of work you have to either spend 500k or live in an overpriced trailer park.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
She grew up in a small town in Indiana and throughout her career has seen the same scenario played out over and over: Wal*Mart moves into a small town, operates at a loss (because they can afford to do this for *years*) and undercuts local retailers (and increasingly grocery stores too, thanks to Super Wal*Mart), driving them out of business
Predatory practices like this are actually quite illegal.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
If you want to be within a 20 minute bike ride of work you have to either spend 500k or live in an overpriced trailer park.
I think "overpriced trailer park" may be another way of saying the same thing that Dogbreath was saying - you'd let go of some of the external status markers and a few of the benefits of living in a McMansion in exchange for affordability and proximity to things that would otherwise require you to drive.

I think this is somewhat true in a lot of cities, but of course if everyone was chasing those properties instead of the ones further out in the suburbs, the relative price might change.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
If you want to be within a 20 minute bike ride of work you have to either spend 500k or live in an overpriced trailer park.
I think "overpriced trailer park" may be another way of saying the same thing that Dogbreath was saying - you'd let go of some of the external status markers and a few of the benefits of living in a McMansion in exchange for affordability and proximity to things that would otherwise require you to drive.
No he said that you just have to give up a yard, pool, and white neighbors.

quote:
You just have to give up the yard, live around people of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, and walk to a public pool to swim. $300,000 is a lot to pay for status.
The places we looked at are giving up a lot more than that.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:
The security and comfort of a big $300,000 house and large backyard with a grill and a pool in a quiet cul-de-sac a 40 minute drive from your job stops being so appealing when you realize you could live at just about the same comfort level in a $90,000 house that's a 20 minute bike ride from your job.
So I'm in Texas, not Hawaii, but we're house hunting at the moment. It just so happens that anything near where I work or any of the business centers where most the jobs are is way more expensive than a house out in the suburbs. If you want to be within a 20 minute bike ride of work you have to either spend 500k or live in an overpriced trailer park.
*nods* I was talking about Indiana in that scenario, actually. Hawaii is an entirely different beast with real estate. A pool and a yard will run you a million bucks here, at least. (more if you're near the beach

[ November 10, 2014, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:
She grew up in a small town in Indiana and throughout her career has seen the same scenario played out over and over: Wal*Mart moves into a small town, operates at a loss (because they can afford to do this for *years*) and undercuts local retailers (and increasingly grocery stores too, thanks to Super Wal*Mart), driving them out of business
Predatory practices like this are actually quite illegal.
If so, it doesn't seem like much of a deterrent seeing as it continues to happen. What exactly is illegal about opening a new store?
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
If you're talking about predatory pricing - i.e, selling items below cost, then yes that's illegal and Wal*Mart has been successfully sued several times for doing so. But the fact that Wal*Mart can sell at a much lower margin than, say, a local business and still sell above cost isn't illegal, nor is running at a loss. (Which is something almost any new store will do for a while, Wal*Mart or not) Because Wal*Mart can sell at those prices nation-wide and makes an overall profit, and doesn't, say, raise prices after the competition has been eliminated. They simply increase their customer base to the point where it becomes profitable.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Given the latest column, I gotta ask how Alvin is doing.
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
The "Yes Please/Underwear/Soft Water" column?
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
No, the "New Messiah, World of Ice and Fire" one. (where he insists GRRM is obligated to finish SoIaF)
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
Ah, I didn't see that one on the main page; thanks! I'm pretty curious to hear his argument about Ice and Fire.

[Edit - I'm not seeing it. Link?]

[Edit II - Nevermind; I found it.]

[Edit III - After reading the article, I'd guess that he doesn't consider the Alvin series to be a work of the same caliber as Ice and Fire. Note that he's pretty explicit about saying that the rule applies to "Great Works". Or maybe he does, and is dragging his heels on Alvin because he wants to be absolutely sure he gets it right.]

[Edit IV - Because if you're going to have three edits, why not four?]

[ November 17, 2014, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Jake ]
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Its hard not to be infected by the limitless pessimism that is SomethingAwful and be convinced that GRRM is going to die before he finishes the books; or has no intention to finish them now that he can blame the writers of the show or whatever.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
"Limitless pessimism" sounds kind of a bitp of goons
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
You know, I can understand fans of OSC becoming disillusioned with his deepening author tract and loopy politics, but GRRM haters are the scum of the nerd universe. This man has worked for decades for his fans, and been nothing if not gracious in the face of their demanding fandom. I haven't read his books (yet), but even if he should never finish his series, I would not act as if the man owes me a thing. He writes books, you buy them. When he gets sick of writing them, that's too bad for you. As Spock says, wanting a hung is often more gratifying than having it. It is not logical, but it is often true.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
Its hard not to be infected by the limitless pessimism that is SomethingAwful and be convinced that GRRM is going to die before he finishes the books; or has no intention to finish them now that he can blame the writers of the show or whatever.

Huh, that's strange. It's pretty easy for me.

quote:
You know, I can understand fans of OSC becoming disillusioned with his deepening author tract and loopy politics, but GRRM haters are the scum of the nerd universe. This man has worked for decades for his fans, and been nothing if not gracious in the face of their demanding fandom. I haven't read his books (yet), but even if he should never finish his series, I would not act as if the man owes me a thing. He writes books, you buy them. When he gets sick of writing them, that's too bad for you. As Spock says, wanting a hung is often more gratifying than having it. It is not logical, but it is often true.
While the Song of Ice and Fire books are fantastic, some of his best writing is his short stories published in the 70s and 80s. His Novelette "Portraits of His Children" is a great place to start reading and get a feel for him as an author.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
You know, I can understand fans of OSC becoming disillusioned with his deepening author tract and loopy politics, but GRRM haters are the scum of the nerd universe. This man has worked for decades for his fans, and been nothing if not gracious in the face of their demanding fandom. I haven't read his books (yet), but even if he should never finish his series, I would not act as if the man owes me a thing. He writes books, you buy them. When he gets sick of writing them, that's too bad for you. As Spock says, wanting a hung is often more gratifying than having it. It is not logical, but it is often true.

I dunno. I don't really blame these people.

I've read the ASOIAF books around the time ADWD came out, and enjoyed them, but I wouldn't say I'm a big fan. I thought ADWD was hard to follow and AFFC wasn't great. I'm very behind on the HBO series.

I was pretty annoyed when it took 3 years between Harry Potters 4 and 5. Between that time, the first two movies came out. Anyway, the only word people had on the books were from movie produces being like, 'yeah, she's writing the book". Because the other books came out so quickly, it still felt off. Also, no query was answered with "oh hey, it's going to be really really long, so long we're gonna drop the font size down". So if someone came along and said "see you in 2003", then, okay, fine.

GRRM ended book 4's epilogue with "Installment 5 out next year!" (printed in the book). He also split the book up so half the characters would narrate book 4 and half the characters would narrate book 5. So book 5 was completing the story from book three, of which the Red Wedding was right near the end. Basically, parts of the story published in 2011 were picking up where the author left off in 2000!

Imagine if there were 10 years between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Sure, Jedi underwhelmed some, but it provided closure.

I think there is an obligation for authors to be realistic about how long books will take, and for long series with large stretches, not do nasty cliffhangers.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
He also originally claimed there would only be three books, and then revised it to four, then five... And now his editor claims there might be two more books after Dream of Spring.

I don't hate GRRM and vastly prefer the books over the show except for some bits of dialogue and characterization I think the show does better (Tyrion in general); but the slow writing speed really hurts.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
quote:
Sure, Jedi underwhelmed some, but it provided closure.
No way man, ROTJ is delightful. And I'll not hear a word against it!
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
I don't know. I can see that if you are giving someone your money you have at least some right to expect something from him. You could argue that you're giving money for the book you are buying, but I think it could be argued that you are buying book 1 and book 2 with the expectation that the series will be finished. If you expected it to not be finished you would not give your money.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:
Sure, Jedi underwhelmed some, but it provided closure.
No way man, ROTJ is delightful. And I'll not hear a word against it!
I liked it personally. I saw it when I was young enough to like the Ewok scenes, but I can understand why they bothered people.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
I don't know. I can see that if you are giving someone your money you have at least some right to expect something from him. You could argue that you're giving money for the book you are buying, but I think it could be argued that you are buying book 1 and book 2 with the expectation that the series will be finished. If you expected it to not be finished you would not give your money.

I know people who won't read a series until every single book is out. I don't get it personally.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
I don't know. I can see that if you are giving someone your money you have at least some right to expect something from him. You could argue that you're giving money for the book you are buying, but I think it could be argued that you are buying book 1 and book 2 with the expectation that the series will be finished. If you expected it to not be finished you would not give your money.

I know people who won't read a series until every single book is out. I don't get it personally.
As I anxiously wait for the final book in the Powder Mage trilogy I can understand why people don't like to have to wait. I don't adhere to it myself, but I can understand it.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
quote:
I don't know. I can see that if you are giving someone your money you have at least some right to expect something from him. You could argue that you're giving money for the book you are buying, but I think it could be argued that you are buying book 1 and book 2 with the expectation that the series will be finished. If you expected it to not be finished you would not give your money.
I think that if this were true, there'd be provisions in the transaction for books 3 and 4. But books from an unfinished series are sold the same as those from finished ones. As a customer of books, you only have the right to get the books you bought.

It's certainly good practice to finish series in a timely manner, but a reader is not entitled to have books written as they wish. Likewise, authors are not entitled to have readers for the books they write. If a series is not living up to one's expectations in either quality or timeliness, one can stop reading it (which I have failed to regarding ASOIF. I'm trying to collect spoilers for Winds but I'm not sure it's working).
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I can absolutely understand why some people are angry about the pace of ASoIaF releases. Anyone who can't is kidding themselves, I think.

What I can't understand is the part where this anger gets translated into some expression of an actual right or entitlement to not just future books, but future books released on an agreeable schedule. Well, I can understand that, but to me it is some frustrating thinking. This was brought to mind with something that happened at work this past week, actually.

I recently transferred positions to a different shift and set of responsibilities in the company. More money, more hours, more demands, etc. All to the good. As it turns out, though, someone on the shift I used to be responsible for filed a grievance, and everyone who didn't work the contractually obligated (to offer to employees, that is) number of hours was paid for those hours for six weeks back. This meant that if an employee only worked an hour and a half a day on weekdays (and there are a lot of those, they're there for the benefits), they got paid an extra three hours per day five days a week for six weeks. This ranged in checks from $700 to $1500.

Now, the absurd thing about this is that almost the entire point of that particular sort and shift from the perspective of 3/4s of the employees who work it is 'a low-maintenance part time job that gives benefits'. In fact almost all of the employees don't want three and a half hours a night on that shift as it interferes with family obligations and their regular FT work, but now they're stuck with it.

I missed this window, and even though my check would have been smaller, I was still annoyed as all hell for a little while. I actually felt wronged by the fact that I wasn't going to get some free money for work I *hadn't* done, but could have if I had asked management gotten the hours for anyway, but I didn't want that much time at that sort anyway. It took some committed reminding to myself that just because the fearsome union had negotiated such a payment, I would only ever have been entitled to it pretty unethically (that is, getting paid for hours that collectively the sort didn't want to have, and hadn't wanted to have for at least 20 years). But for awhile I really not only wanted that money, but felt it was unfair I hadn't gotten it.

It's not unlike the ASoIaF situation, I think. Frankly I think the only real reason anyone feels like some covenant has been broken by GRRM's glacial pace is that there is now a community of people clamoring that such has happened. How much other media in the world today is of a similar format? Set in a series of some sort? So much. There isn't any authentic entitlement in any of that, either. The whole force of it here is just the intensity of wanting, which while satisfying in a way to feel doesn't actually comprise an argument.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
No one linked this yet?

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.html
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
No one linked this yet?

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.html

Ah, that was perfect. Just where my own thoughts were going, but much better expressed by a real author.

I've been waiting for the next book from Rothfuss and will get it as soon as I can after it comes out, but am I mad at him for taking so long? No. It's his book. I want to read it, but I also want him to take as much time as he needs with it, which time I do not dictate. And if he never finishes it, well, I can't say I won't be disappointed, but it's still silly to get mad at him for not producing the content I was waiting to enjoy. Thankfully there are plenty of other authors and books to read.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
It seems fairly obvious to me that he burnt out after the 3rd book in the series.

He published the first 3 books in 4 years time, the 4th and 5th came 5 and 11 years after the 3rd, and there's a clear difference in tone, too. Just compare Storm of Swords to Feast, the former has a passion and urgency to the writing that makes it feel like a quick read even though it's over 1000 pages. The later is a lot more slow, dry, subdued.

And I think this is mainly because he had no idea how big the series would become. He had originally planned it to be 3 books and, well, the story grew in the telling. And since he's publishing it one book at a time, he hasn't had the opportunity to go back and excise characters and story arcs that end up becoming to bloated/distracted later on - he's stuck with them, and has to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. (usually by killing everyone involved, admittedly, but still...)

So I think he wrote his heart out for the first 3 books, and then realized "holy crap, I'm not even half way done"... and since then, he's lost his drive and passion for writing the series and is completing them out of a sense of duty. And because he has integrity and pride, he's doing it right and making sure what he is publishing is of a quality we've come to expect from the series. Which means time, lots and lots of time. Hell, I've been struggling over the past week and a half on a five page letter I don't really want to write - I can't even imagine having a whole book series.

Tolkien did it right - he didn't publish his series until it was already completed, and that gave him a lot of freedom. He simply stopped writing LotR for 6 years in the 1940s before returning to it. He was able to go back and edit earlier parts of the book many times over the course of writing it, and trimmed a lot of fat in the process. And because he didn't, say, publish Fellowship of the Ring in 1939, he didn't have fans hounding him for 15 years about finishing the series. For all we know the best thing for SoIaF would be for GRRM to take 5 or 6 years off and focus on other things, and then come back and finish the series with a renewed vigor. But that's not realistically going to happen, especially with the immense pressure that's put on him - both online, and now that's he's a celebrity, every time he goes out in public. Which is sad.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I'm not entirely convinced he's burned out, ADWD for example has a huge amount of effort and subtext to it that I feel is entirely unimaginable to be capable of a burnt out person. The urgency of the first books makes sense because there's an active civil war and fighting; by book 4 that's over and done with and only inevitability and false hope remains.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I disagree. You can write a big work and be burned out. It's a symptom of procrastinating on getting the story where it needs to be.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Just to point out cause he got mentioned recently:

bill cosby is most assuredly likely a horrendous serial rapist and really bad man, so you can be pretty glad you aren't like him!
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
Yes, I was kind of wincing to see Cosby and Woody Allen there in the same bit. Being funny is not the only thing that they allegedly have in common.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
I know people who won't read a series until every single book is out. I don't get it personally.

I started reading the Wheel of Time series In junior high. Book 6 conveniently came out while I was reading them, but then it was another 2 years before the next one. By then I was in high school and had forgotten most of the intricate plot details and 3 dozen characters, so I re-read books 1-6 before reading 7. 2 and a half years later, same deal, re-reading 1-7 before reading 8. At that point I decided to just wait for him to finish... [Frown]

A large series like that is too detailed for me to remember it all well enough to just jump into the middle of the story after a few years, particularly when "years" could be a decade. There are plenty of other books I haven't gotten around to reading yet; I can read those while waiting for unfinished series to finish.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
It's understandable to want to wait. A Game of Thrones came out when I was 7 years old. I'll be in my 30s by the time the series is finished. That's a pretty big chunk of time. There are adult fans of the SoIaF series who were born after the first book was released.

I haven't re-read the series since 2009, I probably will do so again for Winds, since I've forgotten enough of the minor details and characters for it to become somewhat foggy.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I have mentioned before that I will never read the books until either they are done or grrm is dead. Pretty good strategy so far.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I am not angry nor do I feel entitled. I do have my doubts about whether GRRM is going to finish (I agree with Dogbreath here) so will wait to re-engage with the books until he does. Why put myself through withdrawal again?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Actually what's gonna happen is I'm going to convince GRRM to retire, then I'm going to get Kevin J Anderson to come up with the series' thrilling canon-spanning conclusion
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
unless my demands are met by midnight on the 15th of february.

unmarked non sequential bills only
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Actually what's gonna happen is I'm going to convince GRRM to retire, then I'm going to get Kevin J Anderson to come up with the series' thrilling canon-spanning conclusion

It's too bad GRRM isn't as good of a writer as Anderson is. I mean, Anderson publishes 4, 5, sometimes 6 books a year. He could finish off the SoIaF series in a year and still have time for a Dune novel and a couple Star Wars books.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Sadly I do not have the freedom to not read the next book should it be released regardless of its place in line before completion; because some infantile pillock on the internet will do everything in his or her power to spoil it.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
If that's hyperbole out of predicted frustration, I feel you. If it ain't, don't be silly.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
It isn't, because it actually happened. Twice.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
What? The best part of GOT is watching other people's reactions when certain events happen.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
It isn't, because it actually happened. Twice.

I think you take "spoiler" too literally.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Someone once pm'ed me "ROB AND CAITLYN STARK ARE MURDERED AT THE WEDDING BY THE FREYS."

Tell me how that is not a legitimate reason to read the books as a preventative measure.

That and the book readers can't help themselves, I was on a bus once, discussing the books, I was careful to avoid saying anything when the dude straight up mentioned Tyrion murdering Tywin and his buddy is like "Uh, I hadn't read the books...".
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
That person who PM'd you that was being a serious dick.

I think you still have just as much choice whether to read the books as they come out, or not. A "legitimate reason to read the books as a preventative measure" is not hyperbole, but "I do not have the freedom to not [do that]" definitely is.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
If I want to maintain the same level of enjoyment it certainly isn't.

It's like trying to sleep if someone is playing loud music, its certainly possibly you still have the "choice" to sleep or not, but its still being infringed in an effort to deny you a free choice in the matter.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Serious question for Mormons (and North Carolinians). In at least three recent articles (not going to pull them out right now, but I swear I keep seeing it every other week), OSC has complained that the mainstream media made a mockery of the Mormon faith thing, and it cost the election.

From my POV, it was Bain capital, the 47% thing and a high turn out of women, pocs, and millennials who are alienated by right wing party politics. Then again, because I'm not Mormon and I did not live in a swing state or a bible-belt state (where Baptists pass out those "Mormons are a cult" tracts), any of that stuff went over my head.

Would you say it was accurate?
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
Non-Mormon Californian here and I didn't really notice any Mormon mocking either. Here is an analysis claiming his Mormonism had an effect, but not a big enough one (it doesn't say anything about whether the media was part of the effect though): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-knoll/mitt-romney-mormon_b_4121217.html
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I honestly can't remember any MSM mockery of Mormonism, and I followed that election fairly closely. Then again, as a non-Mormon I'm not as likely to notice it, and I live in a pretty Mormon friendly area. (There's a BYU campus on island, and a large percentage of the population are LDS)

I can imagine maybe some local news stations in the south doing some kind of tacky "magic underwear" bit, but nothing I've seen in the Mainstream comes even close.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
It doesn't ring a bell, but I couldn't swear that SNL or Jon Stewart (just to pick a couple of random examples, and assuming they are part of what OSC would consider mainstream media) didn't highlight his Mormon-ness in a mocking way.

I mean - his church membership was extremely common knowledge, and people in general seem to think Mormons are somewhere between weird and silly, so it's nearly impossible for extensive coverage of Romney not to include something that seems like mockery. But I don't recall anybody really making a point of it in the context of politics, you know?

Maybe OSC is thinking of "The Book of Mormon" the musical.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/03/jon-stewart-slams-critics-of-mitt-romneys-mormon-faith-you-cant-cherry-pick-the-worst-aspects-of-a-religion/

http://www.ldsliving.com/story/68666-jon-stewart-defends-mormonism-on-the-daily-show
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Cool! [Smile]
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I don't know what OSC said exactly, and I don't know of any polling data that does (or doesn't for that matter) suggest that Romeny's Mormonism cost him the election. But I would guess that if it did play a role, it would be more likely to do so by having Republican voters stay home (or not campaign) then changing the votes of those who did show up.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:

From my POV, it was Bain capital, the 47% thing and a high turn out of women, pocs, and millennials who are alienated by right wing party politics. Then again, because I'm not Mormon and I did not live in a swing state or a bible-belt state (where Baptists pass out those "Mormons are a cult" tracts), any of that stuff went over my head.

Would you say it was accurate?

Perhaps there was some torpor in the base because Romney is a Mormon, but I think you're spot on: the thing that really made him look bad was that he was and is a hypocrite, spouting platitudes about his economic prowess, while he made his fortune doing things which are now mostly illegal, because they are so economically destructive.

People might be dismissive of Obama for his "community organizer," resume, but they for damn sure didn't think of him as a soulless businessman who relished firing people and lapping up huge corporate profits.

His obliviousness and repetitive, absurd gaffes were no help: "I love Nascar... I have several friends who are Nascar owners," and "I had to sell stock to pay for college," were tin-eared to a ludicrous degree for someone ostensibly trying to appeal to working class people.

There is a baseline perception of Mormons that they are not patriotic, or perhaps too insular, and are thus "un-American," which I think also contributed to his image problem, but he as a person and his personal history did nothing to mitigate that perception.
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
There is a baseline perception of Mormons that they are not patriotic, or perhaps too insular, and are thus "un-American," which I think also contributed to his image problem, but he as a person and his personal history did nothing to mitigate that perception.

Is there really? I find that hilarious, because a lot of Mormons I know are SUPER patriotic. The Sunday before the Fourth of July, we usually have a bunch of talks about America and patriotism and all that stuff. I've heard people get up in testimony meeting and bear their testimony of how this is a chosen land and how the founding fathers were all inspired to give us the freedoms they did so that the Church could be founded here.

But I completely agree about the rest. I think Romney was a monumental liar and flip-flopper who came off as wooden at best and completely out of touch with most Americans at worst. I always got the feeling that he didn't have any real convictions or beliefs beyond wanting to be president. He always said whatever was expedient. But I don't think it was his Mormonism or the media's supposed mockery thereof that cost him the race.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I would say that there seems to be, in the same way that perhaps Catholics are seen as partisans of something "un-American" by some. This was more pronounced in the past of course. Certainly that was the talk in the 1960s when we elected a Catholic to the White House for the first time (Biden is only the second).

Mormons have a similar thing: they are seen as being partisans to Utah, and in the past that was actually much more true than it is now. There was a time when at least some Utah Mormons saw their future as an independent nation, although it was never a serious proposition.

quote:
I always got the feeling that he didn't have any real convictions or beliefs beyond wanting to be president. He always said whatever was expedient.
I think you might be right.

It was like the infamous "47%" comments. Yes, I understand that the man knows that things don't exactly work that way, and I don't believe that he believes the words he was spouting. But he was spouting them. Nobody made him do that. And no matter how tired you are, you shouldn't say things you don't believe in, just to get a rise out of somebody for some money. That's rightly seen as cynical politicking.

There was an interesting piece on this in Double Down (the sequel to Game Change), that essentially made the same argument. Romney's staff found that he was far too malleable for his own good- too willing to say what needed to be said, no matter how far that strayed from his own principles, and that this lack of spine really hurt his campaign.


Again, I think there are some good reasons people have been and were dismissive of Obama as a naive idealist and a dreamer, but *at least* he had that. And when he made his own "guns and religion" comments, the thing is, I think people understood that he really believes that, and forgive him for it. Romney read as a straight up mercenary, Tywin Lannister of the modern age. Being President seemed the thing he wanted to do as a capstone to his life- and that kind of thing doesn't inspire love.

[ December 02, 2014, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Romney's infamous malleability was actually his greatest strength. It's required to be the person who can win both the conservative primary and still stand a shot at the general election. If you were consistent with your principled views, you would only be able to compete in one or the other.
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
I'll echo Jon Boy in saying that I'm surprised to hear Mormons are thought of by some as insular and not patriotic enough. I've got to think that it mostly means we're "other" to lots of people who see their understanding and version of patriotism as the only real way. I dunno.

I gotta admit, a Mormon in the White House was an exciting prospect for a while. What it would be like to home teach the Romneys? Would you call them Brother and Sister Romney and would they let you bring in cookies? Would Secret Service let the Elders Quorum help them move in?
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Romney's infamous malleability was actually his greatest strength. It's required to be the person who can win both the conservative primary and still stand a shot at the general election. If you were consistent with your principled views, you would only be able to compete in one or the other.

GWB seems to be a contradiction to this requirement.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
afr - [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Romney's infamous malleability was actually his greatest strength. It's required to be the person who can win both the conservative primary and still stand a shot at the general election. If you were consistent with your principled views, you would only be able to compete in one or the other.

GWB seems to be a contradiction to this requirement.
That's a very interesting point, and one that I've been contemplating as of late. I've read GWB's autobiography, as well as several of his cabinet members (in the middle of Rumsfeld's right now) and studied his administration extensively, yet the man is still a complete enigma to me. Like, I can understand Rumsfeld, I can understand Cheney, I can understand Rice, can see how they think, how they got to where they did. Bush I don't get.

If I were to hazzard a guess, it may be because Bush is incredibly likeable. For better or worse, he just strikes you as that guy... you know that guy, a little socially awkward, a little bit scatter brained, but honest, earnest, easy going and incredibly loyal. A man's man but friendly and completely non-threatening. The perfect buddy. He'd be great to have a beer with, or go fishing with. You can imagine him sitting on your back porch with his feet kicked up, drinking a beer and shooting the shit. It'd be easy to forget he's an old money millionaire with an Ivy League education who's been surrounded by wealth his entire life.

Obama has a lot of that folksy charisma too, and it's helped him a lot. Especially against McCain and Romney.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Romney's infamous malleability was actually his greatest strength. It's required to be the person who can win both the conservative primary and still stand a shot at the general election. If you were consistent with your principled views, you would only be able to compete in one or the other.

Well, then perhaps the conservative base is... too far from the center at this point?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by advice for robots:

I gotta admit, a Mormon in the White House was an exciting prospect for a while. What it would be like to home teach the Romneys? Would you call them Brother and Sister Romney and would they let you bring in cookies? Would Secret Service let the Elders Quorum help them move in?

I would suppose that his staff would be very, very strenuous in their objections to any of these things.

Do you think Kennedy and Biden let it be known that they go to confession? It's a bit of a catch 22. It's abandoning your principles if you don't, but possibly off-putting to other faiths if you do.
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by advice for robots:

I gotta admit, a Mormon in the White House was an exciting prospect for a while. What it would be like to home teach the Romneys? Would you call them Brother and Sister Romney and would they let you bring in cookies? Would Secret Service let the Elders Quorum help them move in?

I would suppose that his staff would be very, very strenuous in their objections to any of these things.

Do you think Kennedy and Biden let it be known that they go to confession? It's a bit of a catch 22. It's abandoning your principles if you don't, but possibly off-putting to other faiths if you do.

Well yeah. That was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Romney wouldn't have necessarily been abandoning his principles if he couldn't, say, accept home teachers to come to the White House. I actually have no idea how or if home teaching would even work in that case. And no, the Elders Quorum wouldn't have helped them move in (although that would have been a little bit awesome).

However, I don't see how he would have to abandon his religious practices. Why would it be off-putting to other faiths if he went to church on Sunday and generally observed his faith, same as he does now?
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:


It was like the infamous "47%" comments. Yes, I understand that the man knows that things don't exactly work that way, and I don't believe that he believes the words he was spouting. But he was spouting them. Nobody made him do that. And no matter how tired you are, you shouldn't say things you don't believe in, just to get a rise out of somebody for some money. That's rightly seen as cynical politicking.

There was an interesting piece on this in Double Down (the sequel to Game Change), that essentially made the same argument. Romney's staff found that he was far too malleable for his own good- too willing to say what needed to be said, no matter how far that strayed from his own principles, and that this lack of spine really hurt his campaign.


Wasn't there a scene at the end of Double Down, where Obama met with Romney after the election and was basically amazed to find that he really believed it?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Romney's infamous malleability was actually his greatest strength. It's required to be the person who can win both the conservative primary and still stand a shot at the general election. If you were consistent with your principled views, you would only be able to compete in one or the other.

Well, then perhaps the conservative base is... too far from the center at this point?
It's a party that is already operating on a strategy of "if we can't consistently and sufficiently manage a system of disproportionate electoral representation in our favor, we are completely boned."

It's a party that will barely be able to stop itself from literally shutting down the government and road-hauling our credit rating just to make sure liberals don't get any credit for making government work. Multiple times.

So the way you are putting it is kind of a demographic understatement.

And if the next republican primaries are as completely comical as we try to forget the last one was, you'll know that it's a course still unrighted for them.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:


It was like the infamous "47%" comments. Yes, I understand that the man knows that things don't exactly work that way, and I don't believe that he believes the words he was spouting. But he was spouting them. Nobody made him do that. And no matter how tired you are, you shouldn't say things you don't believe in, just to get a rise out of somebody for some money. That's rightly seen as cynical politicking.

There was an interesting piece on this in Double Down (the sequel to Game Change), that essentially made the same argument. Romney's staff found that he was far too malleable for his own good- too willing to say what needed to be said, no matter how far that strayed from his own principles, and that this lack of spine really hurt his campaign.


Wasn't there a scene at the end of Double Down, where Obama met with Romney after the election and was basically amazed to find that he really believed it?
No, that doesn't ring a bell. Although there are bits in the book that show how much personal contempt Obama has for Romney.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by advice for robots:

I gotta admit, a Mormon in the White House was an exciting prospect for a while. What it would be like to home teach the Romneys? Would you call them Brother and Sister Romney and would they let you bring in cookies? Would Secret Service let the Elders Quorum help them move in?

I would suppose that his staff would be very, very strenuous in their objections to any of these things.

Do you think Kennedy and Biden let it be known that they go to confession? It's a bit of a catch 22. It's abandoning your principles if you don't, but possibly off-putting to other faiths if you do.

Well yeah. That was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Romney wouldn't have necessarily been abandoning his principles if he couldn't, say, accept home teachers to come to the White House. I actually have no idea how or if home teaching would even work in that case. And no, the Elders Quorum wouldn't have helped them move in (although that would have been a little bit awesome).

However, I don't see how he would have to abandon his religious practices. Why would it be off-putting to other faiths if he went to church on Sunday and generally observed his faith, same as he does now?

Because when you don't like the President, anything he does is subject to criticism. There was a lot of talk about how would-be VP Lieberman was going to deal with the fact that he is ostensibly an orthodox Jew, and whether he would follow the sabbath rules, and the like (he doesn't anyway).

Hell, I've seen people commenting on Obama going on daytime TV as him slacking off from his job- as if going on TV isn't a huge part of his job.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
This has been spreading through my Facebook:

http://conservativetribune.com/father-fallen-marine-letter/

It's pretty sad to use a condolence letter for the death of your son as a mouthpiece for your politics.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Hogan died in the middle of 2012. I was in the DEP with him (we both joined from Indiana), he was a good guy. I'm somewhat skeptical of the veracity of that article.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
The letter is dated July 2012.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
They have so much contempt for history that they show a cop using Liquid Paper in 1951 to alter a document in order to get access to Turing’s war records. Only one tiny problem: The first correction fluid was invented by a woman typist in her Texas kitchen in 1951 – but it wasn’t commercially available until 1956.
Those arrogant, elitist movie makers pushing their gay agenda have stooped to a new low. Did they seriously think the American people would be fooled by such a glaringly obvious mistake?
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I can just imagine some liberal screenwriter deliberately putting that minor anachronism in there.

quote:
Hmm. This scene is pretty good, but it doesn't convey my contempt for history well enough. I hate history so much!

Oh! I know! Liquid Paper wasn't commercially available until 1956—as any fool knows—but I'll have a character use it in 1951! That'll show 'em! Score one for the Liberal War on History, which is totally a real thing!


 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Should we tell OSC that most movies that take place in the past and show antique cars, will have cars that were built after the movie is supposed to take place?

I haven't seen the movie, but if they made up the spy thing, half of the scenarios and all this stuff, than it's too much of a fan-fic.

quote:
The first correction fluid was invented by a woman typist in her Texas kitchen in 1951
I'm not sure if the point of this quote was to concede that yes the product was invented, but no one in England would have had it because it was not in wide distribution. But the "woman typist in her Texas kitchen" has a name, Bettte Nesmith Graham, and she built a multi-million dollar company (while being a single mother to a Monkee).
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
A movie which is not even pretending to be a strictly factual documentary is showing its CONTEMPT FOR HISTORY by anachronizing white out by four years or so.

How CONTEMPTUOUS
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I mean I know it might be a lost cause because we're talking about literally osc here but when you use these disparaging pejorative and Action Words on such extremely trivial things you just show that the words mean nothing when used by you.

If this is what counts as CONTEMPT then ok congratulations
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I guess The Passion of the Christ showed CONTEMPT for history because it showed Jesus as a Caucasian.

oh well...
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I doubt there's a single period piece in all of existence that is not peppered with mostly trivial anachronisms.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Mad Men?

I'm sure there are some and I could Google it, but they try very hard.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
I once saw a period piece that took place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away that AFAIK is entirely accurate.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
No that series showed EXCRUCIATING CONTEMPT because it showed Qui-Gon expressing Midichlorian Theory about three years BBY earlier than it was first referenced in archival texts
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
So I saw the Imitation Game tonight, and I would very strongly recommend that absolutely anyone see it, if only because of how tremendously important Alan Turing's work was to both winning WWII and the technology we enjoy today.

It's an incredibly moving film about a friendless man who saves the world, and then is forgotten, reviled, chemically castrated and treated so horribly that he's driven to suicide. And then largely forgotten by the people he saved.

There's a beautiful scene at the end of the movie where Joan Clarke comes by his apartment and tells him about getting on a train in a town that wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for Turing cracking Enigma, buying a ticket from a man who would've probably been dead if it wasn't for him, working a job in a field that wouldn't have existed without him. And the movie closes with the estimate that Turing's work saved 14 million lives.

What's heartbreaking is knowing that conversation probably never happened. He went to his death hated by the country he saved, because he was different.

So of course OSC hates it, of course he calls it "deeply dishonest" and Oscar bait and pandering. Part of the liberal elitist gay agenda. Because he's the person who supports keeping laws against gays on the books - the same laws that drove Turing to suicide. And I shouldn't be disappointed or upset by that because I shouldn't have expected anything else. But what hurts is how Ender resembles Turing, how much of the pain you can see in Ender saving humanity only to vilified by it causes, and it kills me to know an author capable of writing such a brilliant, similar character can't even understand a movie about that character because he's a homosexual.

tl;dr go see Imitation Game. It's brilliant.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
Card is just mad about the part where Turing visits Dumbledore.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Yeah, at first I was skeptical of the Hogwarts story line too, but after I heard "you're a wizard, Alan!" and saw how happy he was to get his wand, I was sold.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
The peculiar thing is that I'm sure enough that it would be a surprise to me to learn that Card actually harbored those sorts of thoughts about homosexuals as individuals, Dogbreath. It's been quite some time since he wrote the works I'm thinking of, but he was able to flesh out really human, noble, authentic characters for whom homosexuality wasn't some sort of defining trait worthy of criticism or condemnation by society or by God.

I do, however, based on much of his more recent non-fiction political commentary, think that he bitterly resents an anti-homosexual overall political or cultural stance being condemned. Of course in practical terms-such as being on NOM-that makes little difference. But for me, it serves as a partial explanation for the man's past work and present politics.

As for laws on the books, I don't recall what his stance is on that presently. I think he's cut a rather fine and not-straight (heh) line depending on who he's speaking to, and to what extent and which laws should be enforced, etc. But I don't think he has or would support laws such as came into effect against Turing.

Today, anyway. But many of the same ideas he espouses today about homosexuals were precisely the sort of thing that led to Turing's sentencing.

--------

I've also read that there is some uncertainty as to whether Turing's death was a suicide. He did after all work with cyanide, and did eat apples regularly. I suspect he did, but there is some thinking that goes that he chose a method that could look like an accident for the sake of his family-particularly his mother.

That struck me as especially potent, since I've had a distant family member commit suicide and a much closer one attempt it. Not for similar reasons, but it serves to show that human misery isn't something that comes without a cost. When it's society inflicting it on the individual, it's not just someone with hurt feelings.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Rakeesh: I was quoting Card's review of Imitation game.

What he thinks of individual homosexuals I'm not sure (I've read his books and know he's written gay characters), and I didn't really think is relevant to what I said. He certainly doesn't like movies about them.

What's interesting in the movie is that there's nobody who acts as a mouthpiece for the director, nobody goes on a rant about how unfair Turing's treatment is (especially not him, who, if anything, acts like it's something he deserves, or is at least resigned to), nobody fights for him. Nor is he shown to be especially noble in is "struggle against the law." He's just systemically isolated and driven to suicide. And that's it. I fail to see how that makes it "deeply dishonest"... would he have preferred to have Turing hook up with Kiera Knightly and get married and live happily ever after having babies?

[ January 12, 2015, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
he was able to flesh out really human, noble, authentic characters for whom homosexuality wasn't some sort of defining trait worthy of criticism or condemnation by society or by God.
And for whom actually acting out on those desires rather than suppressing them and or pairing up heterosexually n' having babies typically ends very badly, as a general reminder if we want to talk about how sympathetic these portrayals are :]
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Yeah. I remember those characters being portrayed as having nobility because of their ability to overcome their natural inclination and stick it in a woman to have babies, thereby fulfilling the Purpose of Life.

At least, the one from the Homecoming series was like that.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
he was able to flesh out really human, noble, authentic characters for whom homosexuality wasn't some sort of defining trait worthy of criticism or condemnation by society or by God.
And for whom actually acting out on those desires rather than suppressing them and or pairing up heterosexually n' having babies typically ends very badly, as a general reminder if we want to talk about how sympathetic these portrayals are :]
This.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Hey, I said it first!

Or, at least, implied it. You know.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
Dogbreath: Did we even read the same review?

From Mr. Card,

quote:
And the movie is worth seeing, because the Ultra project at Bletchley Park is one of the towering intellectual and moral achievements in history -- and it may well have saved the world. Alan Turing was a real man who is worth remembering today -- we still speak of the Turing Test as the best way to evaluate artificial intelligence, and our entire computer culture is based at least partly on his work. This film, despite its flaws and dishonesties and formulas, is About Something, and the Something it's about does matter.

 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Yes, of course we did. Didn't you see the part I quoted? He pretty much completely trashed the movie, and said it was only worth seeing because it's about something important. He, at different times, calls it deeply dishonest, contemptuous of history, full of lies, pandering, and Oscar-bait. I didn't just didn't pull those words out of thin air, I pulled them from his review.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Also, you conveniently left out the prelude to his "something that matters", namely:

quote:


The writers, directors, producers and backers of award-bait movies went to the same film schools and swallowed the same bogus theories as those who make blockbusters, and the results can be just as hollow and dishonest. But because the “serious” films are often about something that matters (and no, the struggle of X-Men for acceptance does not actually matter in the real world; neither do the voyages of the starship Enterprise), the hollowness can hurt a little more. Case in point: The Imitation Game


 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Also, you conveniently left out the prelude to his "something that matters", namely:

quote:


The writers, directors, producers and backers of award-bait movies went to the same film schools and swallowed the same bogus theories as those who make blockbusters, and the results can be just as hollow and dishonest. But because the “serious” films are often about something that matters (and no, the struggle of X-Men for acceptance does not actually matter in the real world; neither do the voyages of the starship Enterprise), the hollowness can hurt a little more. Case in point: The Imitation Game


That's the second paragraph of the review, it doesn't precede the section I quoted.

And where in the review did he say,
quote:
Part of the liberal elitist gay agenda
?

All of his criticisms of the film stem from the historiography. Because the film makers make stuff up because they think the actual history won't drum up enough emotion with the audience to get an Oscar nomination. But in fact what was actually at stake was more than enough to tell a compelling story.

He praises the acting, and heck he says,

quote:
So along with a beautiful telling of the tale of Turing's childhood friendship with his first love, a kind boy named Christopher, the film spends the bulk of its time on bogus conflicts over Turing's struggle to get along with the other mathematicians working at Bletchley Park, constant down-to-the-wire attempts to shut down his code-breaking machine, and a search for a spy among the codebreakers.
Clearly he doesn't have a bee in his bonnet over homosexuality in this instance.
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I would not want to be a gay man in OSC's books anymore than I'd want to be poor Carpenter. I wanted to take that guy out of the book, give him a hug and tell him, dude, you're not a worm because you're disabled! You're AWESOME!

Ugh, and that poor dude in Songmaster [Frown] . Being gay doesn't even WORK like that!
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
The liberal gay elitist agenda was sarcasm on my part. [Smile]

But I get the impression that he's being so hard on the historicity because of the homosexuality. The movie isn't meant to be a documentary, but instead a story about a brilliant, lonely young man who's exiled from society and eventually driven to suicide because of bigotry. The history is largely right, but like all films it takes shortcuts or glosses over things in order to tell it's story. Not because it's trying to up the ante dramatically, but because it makes it easier to tell the story.

For that matter, there are no "constant down-to-the-wire attempts to shut down his code-breaking machine", there's one attempt to shut it down, and it's not "down to the wire" whatsoever. Likewise, the search for the spy isn't a big thriller chase, it's a background event, and is mainly there to intersect with Alan's story and describe his character: people are suspicious of him and he gets his office torn apart because he's so socially awkward, he seems a likely candidate for a spy. It's not particularly dramatic, either. I really recommend watching it so you could see how far off his other claims are.

Card has praised other movies that are far, far less historically accurate than this one. (which gets all the important details right) I really doubt he thinks the movie was destroyed by contemptuous misplacement of liquid paper and a failure to adequately explain minute details of cryptography. I think what bothers him is that the movie isn't formulaic in the way he wants it to be - Turing never falls in love with the female lead, it doesn't end with a happily ever after, and the hero doesn't get the praise, accolade and valediction he deserves. In fact, he still hasn't - there were people leaving the theater with me who had never heard of him until seeing the movie.

I recommend seeing it and contemplating why a man who supports keeping anti-homosexuality laws on the books would dislike it so much. Or just seeing it because it's a great movie, honestly.

Also, I said prelude, not preceding. His saying it was about something important at the end is reinforcing how awful and hollow and dishonest he thinks it is, a recap of the views he expressed at the beginning of the review.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Synesthesia:
I would not want to be a gay man in OSC's books anymore than I'd want to be poor Carpenter. I wanted to take that guy out of the book, give him a hug and tell him, dude, you're not a worm because you're disabled! You're AWESOME!

Ugh, and that poor dude in Songmaster [Frown] . Being gay doesn't even WORK like that!

Hi Syn! Long time no see! [Wave]
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
If Turing had just suppressed his homosexuality and devoted his life to getting a woman pregnant in the bonds of real not-dress-up marriage then Card wouldn't have had to have had such a problem with white-out that was anachronistic by a couple of years. Did you plebeians think of that?

Next up on Unkle Parkour Reviews Errything: I Am Suddenly A Huge Dickhole To J.K. Rowling For Reasons Certainly Not Related To That I Found Out That Dumbledore Boned Dudes
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:

But I get the impression that he's being so hard on the historicity because of the homosexuality. The movie isn't meant to be a documentary, but instead a story about a brilliant, lonely young man who's exiled from society and eventually driven to suicide because of bigotry.

Also: this.

It is possible that Card isn't being weird about this movie at least in part because of Turing's gayness. But he's so obvious and patterned sometimes that yall crazy if you don't think people are going to look at this and say "lol, classic Card".
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
quote:
Card has praised other movies that are far, far less historically accurate than this one. (which gets all the important details right) I really doubt he thinks the movie was destroyed by contemptuous misplacement of liquid paper and a failure to adequately explain minute details of cryptography. I think what bothers him is that the movie isn't formulaic in the way he wants it to be
I'm sure he'd agree with this! Which is why he castigates Schindler's List in the same review. I'm sure even he'd agree that he is not completely consistent in his reviews. One day he's feeling pretty pissy about too much homework being assigned at school, and then he happens to watch "Accepted" on TV, and BOOM! A review. And maybe he likes a film he normally wouldn't. Oh wells?

But based on the things he actually complains about, I can buy that he actually doesn't like those things, and the homosexuality isn't bothering him. He *is* the sort of person where if somebody in the film said, "The Russians are our allies." He'd get fussy about it.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
It's certainly possible, yes. It just seems his disapproval of it seems very predictable considering what it's about.

Also, the whole "the Russians are our allies" comment was made *by the spy* trying to plead with Alan not to reveal him, and it was made in late 1942 in the movie - i.e, during the battle of Stalingrad when the Russians most certainly *were* our allies. (Alan ends up revealing him anyway) There never was any search for a Nazi spy, they were always searching for a soviet spy, and the decision to allow him to stay was in order to pass misinformation to the soviets, which is absolutely something Ultra did. (it's revealed that MI6 is pre-inspecting everything he sends)

I don't want to get into every point, but literally every problem he had with the movie seems like he's stretching as much as possible to make minor errors (or even non-errors) into giant, stupid, arrogant blunders designed to pander to the Academy. The white-out comment is just the most obvious. And I feel like if you watch the movie you'll understand what I'm talking about.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
Well, I certainly plan on seeing it. So we shall see.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
If Turing had just suppressed his homosexuality and devoted his life to getting a woman pregnant in the bonds of real not-dress-up marriage then Card wouldn't have had to have had such a problem with white-out that was anachronistic by a couple of years. Did you plebeians think of that?

Next up on Unkle Parkour Reviews Errything: I Am Suddenly A Huge Dickhole To J.K. Rowling For Reasons Certainly Not Related To That I Found Out That Dumbledore Boned Dudes

The ironic thing was that Dumbledore boned zero dudes. He didn't get any witches pregnant, but hey, nobody's perfect.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
We can't say that Dumbledore boned zero dudes, only that the whole affair with Grindlewald was so traumatic for him that he probably boned no more.

There is PLENTY of dude boning time before then.

Why do I know this.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Yes, Dumbledore was 150 when he died in 1996. So he would have been 99 when he dueled Grindlewald in 1945. Assuming he first started boning dudes around the age of 18, that's 81 years of dude boning to account for.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
That is, of course, unless theamazeeaz is implying that Dumbledore always bottomed.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
For all that I dislike Card's general attitude toward gays, I'm not seeing it in that review. He rags on The Imitation Game for all the usual (often nonsensical) reasons he rags on other 'pretentious' movies or books. I really don't see a hint of anti-gay prejudice in this one. If he wanted to hate it because of teh gay, why recommend it at all?

quote:
if the film increases our rapport with Asperger’s sufferers as well as lonely young homosexuals, I can’t think of that as harmful.

 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
FINE i GUESS.
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
quote:


Ugh, and that poor dude in Songmaster [Frown] . Being gay doesn't even WORK like that! [/qb]

Hi Syn! Long time no see! [Wave] [/QB][/QUOTE]


[Big Grin] ! Waving smily! It's so cute! [ROFL]

I really hope Dumbledore had a nice, lovely man to snuzzle him some time in his life because it would have been depressing if he was like, I have terrible taste in men so I will just concentrate on my work rather than end up in the arms of some nice fellow. [Cry]
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Yes, Dumbledore was 150 when he died in 1996. So he would have been 99 when he dueled Grindlewald in 1945. Assuming he first started boning dudes around the age of 18, that's 81 years of dude boning to account for.

No, that's the thing. Dumbledore was in love with Grindlewald (inrequited) when they were obsessed with the deathly hallows. It was the death of his little sister at their hands that ended their friendship and scarred Dumbledore emotionally from forming relationships, long before the 1945 battle.

I remember hearing he was 150 in a Scholastic interview back in the day, but other things seem to point to an age of 115, not 150.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Synesthesia:
[QUOTE]

I really hope Dumbledore had a nice, lovely man to snuzzle him some time in his life because it would have been depressing if he was like, I have terrible taste in men so I will just concentrate on my work rather than end up in the arms of some nice fellow. [Cry]

I'm pretty sure that's what actually happened. Dumbledore could have hoarded all the wizard erotic capital if he wanted to.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
We can't say that Dumbledore boned zero dudes, only that the whole affair with Grindlewald was so traumatic for him that he probably boned no more.

There is PLENTY of dude boning time before then.

Why do I know this.

The Grindelwald thing happened right after Dumbledore graduated Hogwarts and the entire situation has to be a first relationship.

If Dumbledore were more experienced (HP fanfiction style, say) he'd be a lot more direct about his other intentions. He'd also be more likely to bounce back if he had serious loves at Hogwarts. And Rita Skeeter would have had them in her book too.

[ January 14, 2015, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
One of the things I regard as sacred is the right to be rude and offensive in political print and speech. But apparently that aspect of liberal democracy isn’t sacred to Obama. At least, not enough for him to make even a tiny gesture in its support.

Why has he backed away from showing solidarity with the victims of Muslim terrorism? Because he and his America-hating Leftist friends decided, fifteen seconds after 9/11, that the worst danger was for Americans to get angry at Muslims in general.

I don't see why this is a bad thing, and it blows my mind why someone would think this is true.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Man this latest article is like watching Ben Stein rant while his brain disintegrates. Everything is slathered in pathologically unsupportable hyperbole, Obama is a mustachioed supervillain waiting to use his urban black youths army or whatever to Quisling America over to our new simultaneously Muslim and secular overlords

Does anyone want to bother with a substantive point by point reply to this? Is anyone even really backing him up anymore outside of a vanishing fraction of hardcore right wingers who eat this stuff up like a Bircher quarterly?
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

Does anyone want to bother with a substantive point by point reply to this?

Please do
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
His thing about returning the bust to the British appears to be based on a false rumor.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/27/fact-check-bust-winston-churchill
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Oh, that article? Don't you silly people read them at Rhino Times? They come out every Thursday and there's no paywall.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Googled the Churchill bust thing:

1. There are two, by the same artist. One arrived during the 1960s, the other during George W. Bush's tenure.

2. The Bush bust WAS given back when Obama was inaugurated, because it was considered to be on loan and belonging specifically to Mr. Bush's presidency. Apparently this is standard practice among the people who deal with White House art and the new administration had nothing to do with it.

3. The 1960s bust is very much still there. The rep at the White House had no idea there was one that came and left, and one that's been there all along, and apparently, so do lots of other people.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/after-dustup-over-churchill-bust-an-apology-from-the-white-house/?_r=0
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
You're talking about a man who writes scathing "reviews" of movies he's never seen. (think of his several-article-spanning attack on Lincoln, for example) I somehow doubt fact checking plays a role in the articles he writes.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

For example, Obama or his people could have rejected renewing the loan, or Bush's guys just threw it in the box to give to the embassy and didn't say anything.

In any case, now the capital has one: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/30/churchill-bust-unveiled-kerry-boehner
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
Although it may be a perfectly fine book, I wouldn't say that a biography of Churchill by Boris Johnson (Conservative Mayor of London, probable future leader of the Conservative party, possible future Conservative Prime Minister, powers that be help us) is likely to be an unbiased, reliable source of information on old Winston.

Conservatives love Churchill even more than they adore Thatcher. They all grow up feeling like he's their grandpa.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

Does anyone want to bother with a substantive point by point reply to this?

Please do
No, I blatantly want to pawn it off on someone else.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Oh, that article? Don't you silly people read them at Rhino Times? They come out every Thursday and there's no paywall.

You know, I actually liked his latest review (not posted on Hatrack yet) sans the obligatory "Obama hates America" bit, but there was one line that actually made me laugh out loud:

quote:

I had no interest in American Sniper. The title made it sound too violent. I’ve read too much about war to want to see it close up.

I sure do feel bad for him, you know, with all that reading about war. Must be traumatic.

I realize that's kind of unfair to say, and I'm not trying to claim any sort of high ground here - my military service was relatively safe, boring and trauma free. It's just that as of late after transitioning into a civilian job I've come to realize the most valuable thing the military gives - perspective. It's sort of hard for me to care much about my coffee being made wrong, or traffic being bad, or my boss being unfair with performance reviews, or what Karen the receptionist thinks of me. And it's interesting to see that things that get people all bent out of shape don't really affect me at all. I'm not sure if that makes me numb or well adjusted, but either way I kind of like it. The blog just war things does a pretty good job of capturing this disconnect pretty well, and a lot of vets I know feel the same way - it's just kind of hard to be emotionally invested in relatively trivial things.

Which is actually why I recommend seeing American Sniper, because I don't think I've seen a movie that better captures that feeling. It's not the horrors of war that haunt Chris Kyle, it's the feeling that who he is back home isn't nearly as important, doesn't really matter much.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Also, this. I started reading some of the comments and got through 2 or 3 before my brain started hurting. I have only myself to blame.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Work at home for google!!!!!

Sometimes I wonder if people think that the soldiers fighting The War on Terror were out converting people to Christianity.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:

Which is actually why I recommend seeing American Sniper, because I don't think I've seen a movie that better captures that feeling. It's not the horrors of war that haunt Chris Kyle, it's the feeling that who he is back home isn't nearly as important, doesn't really matter much.

In that vein, I'm curious what you thought of Sebastian Junger's War.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Never read it. I'll check it out from the library (you can do that on your Kindle nowadays!) and read it this week. [Smile]
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Just watched his TED talk about the subject: http://www.ted.com/talks/sebastian_junger_why_veterans_miss_war?language=en

I instantly liked his talking about the austere conditions. When I tell people about being in the Marines and talk about spending weeks sleeping on the ground in the same clothes, they all act sort of baffled. I think everybody assumes we went out for a few hours and then go back to a fully functional base with showers and cooks and stuff, when reality is more of 3 strands of C-wire, a tent and a generator for the gear we use (or a lot of times, just a lot of batteries), and if we're lucky some cots for days or sometimes weeks.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Well I didn't bother with a point by point but I did make and disseminate something which is kind of how I feel about the whole of Orson Scott Card's political writings and I guess it's getting some traction. Not that anyone cares, because few people even bother to defend the guy anymore and just sort of sit around awkwardly silent hoping that we just won't talk about those insane things he writes, because it's awkward and embarrassing at this point even to try to suggest that he's not just saying completely nuts things or that even if he's arguing passionately about something it's still totally unfair to think he's not a nice guy because he would be soft-spoken if you met him in person or something
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
You know, embarrassingly, I still read every article, every book, even sometimes his short stories. Why?

Well, growing up OSC influenced me more than almost any other author, save maybe Tolkien. Reading Ender's Game changed my entire perspective on the world when I was 12 years old. I know some people view it as a sort of power fantasy - the poor, misunderstood, genius child saves mankind and proves them all wrong. But foor me, it taught me patience. It taught me emotional control, how to assess social situations logically, how to try and see the motivations behind words and actions rather than evaluating everything at face value. Most importantly, it taught me empathy. For someone who had been a pretty sociopathic child, it taught me a lot about putting myself in another person's shoes and figuring out what makes him tick, why does he feel this way, why does he make the choices he does?

And that's something that used to resonate through all of OSC's work. He had a depth of understanding of human nature, and the remarkable ability to express it so clearly and simply that I could understand and relate to it as a child.

So I think about his old work and the Secular Humanist Revival Meetings and think about what a deep and profoundly human person he used to be, and I can't help but think that he's still that person. That this slide towards increasingly manic, unpredictable, radicalized political opinions and seemingly loose grip on the reality of American politics and society will reverse itself.

At this point even his books are starting to suffer as he pours more and more of his personal ideology into every one he writes. I mean, look at the difference between Ender in EG and EiE, the latter is almost unbearably obnoxious and arrogant in his absolute certainty that everything he does and thinks is right, the former is quiet, reserved, willing to watch and observe, introspective. And all of Card's protagonists have suffered the same transformation - from deeply empathetic, humble, flawed-but-beautiful characters to self righteous arrogant jerks who are inherently good and pure. I was actually excited when The Lost Gate came out because the protagonist is someone who's kind of an asshole and isn't perfect and does plenty of shady things to get by and doesn't lecture anybody on morality. Then by the sequel, he "gets better" and starts heading down to road to self-righteous-jerkdom.

But then I read Ender's Game or Speaker again, and it's still just as good. And I can't help but hope something will change and we'll get our old Card back. I don't expect him to change his political opinions or start liking Obama or even approve of gay marriage. Not demonizing everyone who disagrees with him on arbitrary political or artistic points would be enough. Not blatently inserting political or social opinions into everything would be enough. Having the empathy to realize that not everybody who disagrees with you is a lying elitist hollywood narcissist atheist abortionist America-hating Muslim loving history denying lazy millennial cowardly liberal would be enough.

Will this ever happen? No, it'll probably get worse, not better. Heck, just look at his political writings in early 2008 and compare them to his current opinions - he's gotten far more extreme in 7 years. And I'm honestly not sure how much longer I'll keep watching, because at some point it's no longer good for me to continue being disappointed week after week.

But for right now, I do think it's sad that so many of OSC's fans here are people who are immensely frustrated and disappointed with him. Which says something about how good his work used to be - it's hard to find many people who enjoyed his books but still agree with anything he says nowadays.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Well I didn't bother with a point by point but I did make and disseminate something which is kind of how I feel about the whole of Orson Scott Card's political writings and I guess it's getting some traction. Not that anyone cares, because few people even bother to defend the guy anymore and just sort of sit around awkwardly silent hoping that we just won't talk about those insane things he writes, because it's awkward and embarrassing at this point even to try to suggest that he's not just saying completely nuts things or that even if he's arguing passionately about something it's still totally unfair to think he's not a nice guy because he would be soft-spoken if you met him in person or something

I'd be happy if we talked about the things he writes instead of talking about what it says about him as a person all the time.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I did just that a few posts back. Specifically, talking about what he wrote about American Sniper and my own opinion about the movie.

Honestly, most of the conversation in this thread has been about the things he writes about. Like how much I dislike his patronizing disapproval of millennials, or how I disagree with his political opinions, etc. And I'm sure he's a perfectly wonderful person IRL, and seems very nice and charming in the videos he's in, but I've never met the man, or spoken with him other than a few threads here. (He stopped posting shortly after I started, sorry about that) So my only exposure to who he is is the things he writes.

And over the past decade, there has been a pretty dramatic shift in his rhetoric and a radicalization of his opinions, to the point that you have to wonder what's happened to him as a person to cause this shift. I wouldn't necessarily say he's changed his political stance so much as he's become so incredibly political that it infects literally everything he writes at this point. Everything Obama does is proof of his contempt and hatred for America. Every movie he doesn't like is because the producer was contemptuous of history and an elitist liberal who sneers at the common man.

It's an incredibly defensive, reactionary posture, and if I were to guess I would say that it coincides with the attacks on him about his views on homosexuality, which really picked up steam ~2005 or so. A lot of those attacks were incredibly hyperbolic, demeaning, extreme, and sometimes outright dishonest, and I think maybe unfortunately they've lead him into becoming the sort of person they made him out to be.

Honestly I don't want to continue down this path, since I think this sort of psychoanalysis is pretty condescending and disrespectful, and I'm uncomfortable talking about him that personally. I'm sure he has his own reasons for the choices he made. OTOH, I have no problem with sharing my disappointment with what those changes have caused him to write, if only because of how much I respect the person he used to be. (or perhaps still is, but doesn't show, or never really was but seemed to be)
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I haven't read a thing he has written since...um...let me think...had to look it up....Empire.

And don't plan to.

Just like after Heinlein went nuts and wanted to sex his whole family...including the dog.

We will always have the pre-crazy OSC novels!

Also....great post DB. (Ha! My autocorrect almost changed your initials to something offensive)
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
I'd be happy if we talked about the things he writes instead of talking about what it says about him as a person all the time.

Sure, let's talk purely about the words in the articles. Their complete buy-in to weak manufactroverseries like the Churchill bust or the bulk rate 2012 Benghazi conspiracies shows that these political screeds can't or won't avoid preposterous yawners if that would impede the ceaseless obsession with denouncing Obama constantly with the most unsustainable and absolute hyperbole possible. This body of work will tilt at literally any windmill possible to proclaim Obama and the American Hating liberal Leftaliban in sheer contempt for civilized values in general, worst president, joseph goebbels, etc.

But beyond just these specific starters, the meltdown after Obama's re-election and the absurdly deranged article full of 'tongue in cheek' dogwhistles about black people becoming Obama's new dictatorial National Police that 'sure sound plausible' are just completely nuts and these articles are showing no signs of relenting from this trend of laughably pompous neuroses, whether about Obama or liberals or the media or hollywood or feminists or believers of global warming. But it would be nice if at bare minimum these articles avoid a troubling retread into racist territory, for the sake of whatever moral credibility they still claim to have.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
but seriously it's honestly becoming conspicuously irrelevant because talking about the articles IS talking about the man writing the articles, it's utterly inseparable and in the absence of any real controversy about them here or anywhere because practically nobody appears to be seriously trying to defend them anymore, this is if not an idle amusement just sort of a continued output of wonderment specific to the community about what these articles are really saying

but! if anything, we are super experts at irrelevant wonderment, so we got that going for us.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Card has left on me a deeply ingrained legacy as an author I'll never discard or forget, and will keep reading Enderverse fiction, as it comes out, until they are no longer fun reading (which hasn't happened yet).

Not to say that I'm not deeply disappointed in the way things have gone, but I guess I'm just doomed to have to be interested in works written by caricatures of wingbat Right Wingers.

Thankfully I never got into Ringo's Posleen series, crikey.

Turtledove seems to be the only left wing speculative military fiction author at the moment I know of, I need to see if I can find others.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Sam, care to share your piece here?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I too would like to read it...however it would be inappropriate I bet to post a link here...how bout the proper key words to Google it?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I can't believe he's writing openly racist stuff now. Urban gangs becoming Obama's police force?

All I have to say is, if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank. Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his. Coming here and treating this like some kind of safe space, in the wake of his behavior ( since @2000 or so) is/was sticking your head in the sand, at least to some degree.

The real downfall of the forum, though, wasn't occasional trolls like me. It was moderation that allowed certain extremely strident members to...do what they did, which was run off most people to other hatrackosphere forums, or other unrelated forums. You can't troll it up through articles, then expect trolls to NOT overrun your own forum.

That sure wasn't my fault.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank.

No, I think that's you.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.
Bull.
Two people can each be assholes without one being the other one's origin story.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Man, give it up. Every so often you peddle this bunk around about how your admittedly douchy behavior wasn't really that bad because *point over there*.

You were contemptuous of Card and others here, and so decided to behave contemptuously here in a deliberate (and frankly silly, adolescent, narcissistic) ploy to trash something Card and others liked, making it worse.

Fast forward years later and it's worse, so your story goes, but heck if that's anything to do with you! I guess. I mean, were you either lying about your motives, or just incompetent?
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
You'd make a great marriage counselor, Tom.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Yeah, OSC pays for these boards, they are not cheap, and judging by how fast Kristine will reply to queries about book publication and the business end of things, the Card family still reads them (unless JanitorBlade is tasked with letting them know when he sees queries, and then they just pounce on those). I've heard OSC himself make the analogy of it being his living room when he was promoting SOTG back in 2005.

If you want to disagree with what he writes or say something is wrong or silly, that's one thing. The entire point of why we are here is to discuss things that Orson Scott Card writes.

The short time that OSC posted regularly on these forms was pretty awesome and I do miss it. I imagine people would want to continually look to engage him on the political front, which would cut into writing time, be a continual chore, and a waste of time that he could be using to spend with his grandchildren.


... It's also really weird to have people talk about you on the internet as if you can't read what they are saying. I have had to do some interviews for my job, and "who's the hot chick in the middle?"* popped up in one of the internet comments (we had a group picture, and I was in the middle). Part of me was flattered and glad I wore makeup that day (cystic acne is terrible), but the rest of me was seriously disturbed. Like, do I reply to that? What do I say? Am I going to get myself a stalker once they figure out that we were labelled in another picture? Was it a random person? Or someone I know making a joke? I make crap comments on the internet all the time. And then my mother and one of my other co-workers felt the need to tell me that someone on Reddit thought I was hot. Honestly, it was a harmless comment, but still an unsettling experience, and I'm glad I don't have a higher profile so people who I don't know start developing stronger interests and opinions of me. I don't want strangers to care that much.


*This was a categorically inappropriate comment for the interview, which was a group interview about the science we do. And for the morbidly curious, in the picture I was wearing an LL Bean purple hooded zip-up sweatshirt over a button-up, collared shirt (that didn't really go with the sweater, but I keep it in my office and never wash it because work isn't warm enough ever). It was very librarian not-chic.
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
All I have to say is, if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank. Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.

What a bunch of crap. You treat every place disrespectfully. Maybe the only consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships is you.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
I imagine people would want to continually look to engage him on the political front

I disagree. I honestly believe the reason most conversations about him here focus on his political beliefs because that's what he writes about relentlessly. When he writes about non-political things that are interesting and insightful I'm more than happy to talk about those too, and TBH I could probably do a better job of posting more about the things he writes that I greatly appreciate (like his recent TED talks about education), but I think if he started posting here again it wouldn't instantly become political. Unless, that is, he decided to post political things. What do you say then? "Your rant was very grammatically pleasing?"


quote:
I keep it in my office and never wash it because work isn't warm enough ever
You know, I started my current job 3 weeks ago, and it's uncomfortably warm in the office all the time. I wear short sleeve dress shirts or roll my sleeves and drink ice water constantly, but I still end up sweating through my undershirt by the end of the day.

There's a woman who works with me who wears a coat. Not a jacket or hoodie, but a friggin coat to work and wears it all day. She always complains about how it's always freezing in the office.

There are some things I'll never understand.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
It's true that politics are what OSC most memorably engages his Rhino readers with, and so they come up a lot. But even if OSC stopped writing about politics and stuck to food and movies and never went on a tangent into politics, readers would still ask about his more memorable pieces, which are on the internet forever, and strike a nerve.

Is your co-worker thin by chance? Us thin folk are just freezing all the time.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
TBH I could probably do a better job of posting more about the things he writes that I greatly appreciate (like his recent TED talks about education)
I think the last movie I saw in the theaters was Interstellar, and I don't buy many packaged snacks, so it's hard to give opinions on his reviews.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Is your co-worker thin by chance? Us thin folk are just freezing all the time.

Hey, what are you implying here? [Wink]

No, she's pretty portly. I think I have a very high metabolic rate (I've had a lot of difficulty gaining weight, and had to go on some pretty strict weight gaining diets to meet my fitness goals) which may be why I'm always warm.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
TBH I could probably do a better job of posting more about the things he writes that I greatly appreciate (like his recent TED talks about education)
I think the last movie I saw in the theaters was Interstellar (though he might change his mind), and I don't buy many packaged snacks, so it's hard to give opinions on his reviews.
Well we're both kind of SoL here, since Card's stated he won't go see Interstellar and I'm too poor/happy about not having diabetes to waste my money buying junk food.
(Also, your snubbery of the Interstellar Thread has been duly noted)
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
All I have to say is, if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank. Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.

What a bunch of crap. You treat every place disrespectfully. Maybe the only consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships is you.
Dude, I don't troll my OWN forums...or anywhere else, IIRC. You might respond similarly if a devout Mormon author whose work you gave as gifts and recommended to dozens of people started posting hateful anti-Mormon screeds, for instance.

You know, maybe.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.
Bull.
Two people can each be assholes without one being the other one's origin story.

What's up, Tom? I missed you, baby.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
All I have to say is, if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank. Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.

What a bunch of crap. You treat every place disrespectfully. Maybe the only consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships is you.
Dude, I don't troll my OWN forums...or anywhere else, IIRC. You might respond similarly if a devout Mormon author whose work you gave as gifts and recommended to dozens of people started posting hateful anti-Mormon screeds, for instance.

You know, maybe.

...except, you know, this one, as you started this sidebar by admitting again?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I wonder why people still bother trying to tell steven that it's his fault at this point. Either he knows already and is just fishing for some uppity or he has no clue and never will since everyone has already explained it as nicely as humanly possible.

Either way it's not HIS time they are wasting.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
im gonna punch Steven in the jimmies some day and then lecture him about how I have externalized the fault of my behavior onto him

If he continues to complain about this or hold me responsible for the inflicted suffering I am going to use that as a continued justification for a newly renewed adolescent self righteous spree of further jimmy punchin'

Y'all brought this on yoself Steven you don't see me punchin anyone else's jimmies today
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Great post...sept for the threats of continued physical harm. Doubt that part is long for these boards dude.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
if it was inappropriate, i blame the forum. if you don't like it, hold yourselves responsible not me
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
You know, I started my current job 3 weeks ago, and it's uncomfortably warm in the office all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9nk1sNRHfM
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
When I was working as a junior QA something like eight years ago in Longmont I was put right underneath an overcharged vent that turned my workstation to about 30f at best. I was wearing double coats and gloves and a hat in the middle of summer.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
All I have to say is, if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank. Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.

What a bunch of crap. You treat every place disrespectfully. Maybe the only consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships is you.
Dude, I don't troll my OWN forums...or anywhere else, IIRC. You might respond similarly if a devout Mormon author whose work you gave as gifts and recommended to dozens of people started posting hateful anti-Mormon screeds, for instance.

You know, maybe.

...except, you know, this one, as you started this sidebar by admitting again?
I'm pretty sure that was clearly understood to be implied. If not, fine. Assume it to be implied.

And I was always a good-faith member at ornery. I left after several years because I felt the mod had an obvious bias against liberal members, but I never trolled there.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I wonder why people still bother trying to tell steven that it's his fault at this point. Either he knows already and is just fishing for some uppity or he has no clue and never will since everyone has already explained it as nicely as humanly possible.

Either way it's not HIS time they are wasting.

Nicely? Did you ever READ the Hatrack Gossip Thread at Sake, before Mike got ashamed of it and cleaned it up? HA. 'Racka, please. LOL

Then there was JT's site, entropical isle. I'm not even sure how some people justify what they said there. It was offensive, and unnecessary. Anybody care to dispute that?
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
This is the review column thread people.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It's almost as though people could... detect you were being a schmuck, and reacted to it, Steven. Weird!
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
i have never seen a community less effectively moderated than ornery. the entire place is demented beyond comparison and some days it feels like three quarters of the posts are frenetic overcompensatory obsession piled in a shamespiral of vomitous misery

that or it's like pete at home going for the bingo bonus of 9 rambling chain posts in a row
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
i have never seen a community less effectively moderated than ornery. the entire place is demented beyond comparison and some days it feels like three quarters of the posts are frenetic overcompensatory obsession piled in a shamespiral of vomitous misery

that or it's like pete at home going for the bingo bonus of 9 rambling chain posts in a row

It was better before about 2005 or so. Its downturn happened roughly in parallel with Hatrack's, I think. I lurked there for
about 30 minutes once last year, and it has gone full-on surreal, I agree.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
If you ask any American liberal what it is that separates them from those awful Tea Party conservatives, I bet you that nine times out of 10 they’ll answer, “Tolerance.”

Liberals have it; conservatives don’t. Or so liberals believe, in their rigid, unbending, hate-filled view of everyone who doesn’t agree with them.

Well, this week's article starts out nice.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
When did we decide that political affiliation was about personal qualities, rather than philosophical and epistemological convictions?

Tolerance is not a philosophy- it's a quality. It's not one that encompasses any particular philosophy. Something OSC demonstrates on a weekly basis at this point, as he spouts intolerance from every possible philosophical viewpoint.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
If you ask me what most important quality separates me from your average tea party conservative, it is that I am correctly informed by science and I am fighting their attempts to legislate from a position of scientific ignorance, whether they are doing so from a genuine failure to understand scientific consensus, or from having been paid off to undermine scientific consensus.

The fact that I AM also more tolerant, in that I work against structures of power that marginalize minorities, structures of power bolstered by anti-immigration zealotry, "defense of marriage" homophobia, racism that writes off black victims of police violence and dogwhistles urban blacks as 'thugs,' bigotry of many other sorts — qualities endemic to tea party republicans? Less important, but still present. I can only be amused if someone who wrote articles saying that if gay marriage was legalized, it would be justification for Americans to rise up and overthrow their government now wants to lecture others on tolerance or what it truly means to be tolerant or what the actually more tolerant party is. For good reason, I can't particularly take it seriously, and excruciatingly few other people will.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Although I think you'd probably get a better batting average for "tolerance" among average liberals compared to average Tea Party conservatives, that's not what I'd pick as the defining difference. Besides, there is a worrying trend of intolerance among liberals (see Brendan Eich). I don't think our superior tolerance is the best way to brag while things like that are pretty fresh in our memory (although, tiresomely, we have to also point out that Eich is not an example of having his free speech rights or exercise of religion infringed by Big Brother).

Of course, the whole exercise of picking ONE thing as the biggest or most important difference is kind of silly. But if I was forced to pick one thing, it's that the Tea Party is organized around the idea that big government is inherently bad, and most liberals don't subscribe to that philosophy.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Liberals are not Canadian. Also when was the last time I saw a self-declared liberal say that 600,000,000 non-liberals should be mass-murdered?

Oh right, I didn't. That was a Tea Party person saying that "all liberals in the world are scum and should be executed".

On another speculative military scifi author's forum.

I'd say Liberals tend to be just as intolerant, but less about race and more about stupid edgy lifestyle choices.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Just finished the whole article. orson scott card is basically writing (and he may not be intending to say this but when you get to the core points of the article it's what the article is saying) that an example of the intolerance of liberals is that they don't want to see or vocally don't like a movie, but the movie is about people we should lionize no matter what. reading it out like that made me double check just to make sure i definitely have it right, that it's really that impossibly dumb once you boil out all the self-righteous fluff, because that seems a bit hard to believe! but it seems to check out.

Oh, also a hard to embellish strawmanny-thing:

quote:
But in the minds of the Other Half, the people who don’t know any soldiers or sailors, “the military” is some faceless mob of angry gun lovers – and those who make or go to films that honor them and show us their sacrifice must be intolerant hate-filled Tea Party conservatives.
yeahhhhhh, so apparently if we want to know what real liberals think in any really representative numbers, he is here to explain to us that liberals think you must be a member of the tea party if you want to go see this movie. i'm really super glad we have him here to explain liberals to us so believably
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Names are Nouns.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I went and saw American Sniper and thought it was a great movie. I don't consider myself a liberal, but by OSC standards I'm pretty much a communist so I fall into the liberal group. I also know people in the military - in fact, I am a veteran. Does this mean I should consider myself a member of the Tea Party? Should I despise myself/hold myself in contempt? I'm so confused here.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
buh
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
I hate all of you, I went and found that dumb article. Does anyone else notice that the idea of tolerance that he is working with just doesn't work at all. It just cartwheels over itself to support that he doesn't like that some liberals don't like something or don't agree with him. Or they say mean things about his beliefs. So he expresses that this is intolerance, and says mean things about their beliefs. And this is tolerance.

You wicked demon liberals I guess you'll never understand. My logic.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
50% odds its because people boycotted Ender's Game because of his personal beliefs and political advocacy.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Parkour: Yes, his logic in it is so incoherent, convoluted and contradictory that it borders the line between "haha, crazy Card" and an argument you might expect from an actual crazy person. Like, I'm not saying that because I disagree with it (though I do), I say that because I'm not sure there's any way possible *to* agree with it. It doesn't make any sense.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Also, American Sniper is a strange movie to pick as a target for a "liberal vs. conservative" benchmark. It's an incredibly successful movie that has been received quite positively by the snobby ivory tower librul movie critics and has gotten 6 Academy Award nominations - including Best Picture - from the bastion of elitist America-hating artsy-fartsy intolerant liberalism itself - aka, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

It's also interesting to see how Card is singing Clint Eastwood's praises and talking about how great his movies are, *including Million Dollar Baby*, when he completely panned it in 2005 and wrote it off as "shallow, stupid and pretentiously bad."

It's like he's trying to create a political conflict where one exists, and where nobody wants one to exist. Which is sad, because AS really is a great movie and is quite moving and has a lot to say about the past 15 years and war in general. There are so many interesting things you could write about or analyze in the movie, so many different things it has to say about human nature, but instead Card chooses to use it as a vehicle to launch a nonsensical political crusade. Which is a pretty effective response to BlackBlade's question of why we discuss his political opinions all the time - he doesn't leave us much in the way of options.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Eh. Maybe I'm crazy too, but I think it makes sense and Elison has it.

In addition to the problems OSC's faced, the Miss California incident, Chick-Fil-A, Mozilla and Duck Dynasty are great examples of intolerance over finding somebody doesn't support gay marriage. The pro-gay marriage side gets gung-ho about boycotts, and the other side points out that it's technically unfair/illegal to stop someone over an unpopular opinion.

A lot of people will flat out refuse to date Republicans (it's a running joke in certain fiction I've read too), and conservatives do get a lot of crap at colleges. Whether this crap takes the real life form of anything that makes up those "Christian debates atheist professor and wins" chain letters is probably no.

The liberal intolerance for anti-gay marriage views is like intolerance for anti-vaxxers. Being against gay marriage hurts gay couples, which may be the liberal or a close friends. Being against vaccines hurts babies and the immunocompromised. There's a difference between's someone's opinions making them a harmless weirdo and hurting me and mine. One side is all "My religion says it's a sin, my opinion is that gay marriage isn't right and I'm allowed to vote the way I choose and support what I chose because this is the USA". The other side is all "You are denying benefits for my family or friends".

And the other issue that both positions are mainstream in some places and fringe positions in others, depending on where you go.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
theamazeeaz: did you even read the article? It's not about gay marriage at all. It's about how he thinks being liberal means hating the military.

Seriously, read it and tell me how much sense his logic makes by the end.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
The pro-gay marriage side gets gung-ho about boycotts, and the other side points out that it's technically unfair/illegal to stop someone over an unpopular opinion.
People do remember that OSC helped lead a boycott against Starbucks for supporting gay causes before people called for a boycott on Ender's Game, right? I feel like people seem to act like this didn't happen.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
No it's different. Starbucks was oppressing Mr. Card by trying to shove their vile gay agenda down his throat, whereas those elitist, intolerant liberals (because liberals are a homogenous group and never ever, say, vary in opinion of whether boycotts are effective or ethical, or anything else for that matter) were attacking him just because he wanted to deprive a whole group of people a basic civil right because he just doesn't like them. On the plus side, he now supports the overthrow of the U.S. government since gay marriage is now federally recognized (DoM repeal), which ought to make any America-hating liberal happy.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I am honestly trying to figure what percentage of liberals or just leftists in general actually act like how card is describing. i get something like it in a real tiny vein of anti capitalist far left radicals in New England just in the form of vague Facebook posts celebrating being able to identify pro war propaganda when disguised as anti war propaganda but that's about it.

He mentioned Michael Moore by name but it is hardly that surprising that he doesn't seem to know what moores argument pertaining to the movie is, even when Moore is busy cramming his big fat foot down his throat these days on the movie
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
The pro-gay marriage side gets gung-ho about boycotts, and the other side points out that it's technically unfair/illegal to stop someone over an unpopular opinion.
People do remember that OSC helped lead a boycott against Starbucks for supporting gay causes before people called for a boycott on Ender's Game, right? I feel like people seem to act like this didn't happen.
No, I don't remember this.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
It was in the news a fair amount in 2013, and used as (pretty blatantly retroactive) justification to boycott the Ender's Game movie by some.

I do think it's kind of disturbing when people talk about how harmless OSC's views are, since it requires a sort of willing ignorance of his work with the NOM and the significant amount of damage he did. I've never boycotted anything related to Mr. Card - I buy his books, went and saw EG in theaters, and heck, I post here - but it's more than a little disingenuous to complain about people boycotting your work just because you want to oppress gays while you're actively running a boycott again a company that supports gay rights.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
Are we so sure that the boycott against Starbucks doesn't predate Mr. Card being invited to join the board of NOM? Additionally, it is my understanding that Mr. Card, after joining the board, was not actively involved in decision making. He then left the board some time later.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Yes, we're absolutely sure. That sort of information if fairly easy to find. It was started while he was a member of the board of directors.

Edit: Also, I don't really want to go into how complicit he was in the action, since presumably we don't have a transcript of the meeting that instituted that boycott. It's something of a moot point - as a member of the board of directors, he *was* responsible for the leadership of the NOM and the decisions it made. If he was opposed to the direction the NOM took in 2012 with boycotts (of which there is absolutely no evidence), it was his responsibility to resign. He didn't. (Though you could argue his eventual resignation the following year was due to him being uncomfortable with the direction the NOM was going, it was long after the Starbucks thing was old news)
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
what else happened in NOM starting in 2009

quote:
In March 2012, NOM memos dated to 2009 advocating strategies of pitting the African-American and homosexual communities against each other, of discouraging Latino assimilation into a culture accepting of same-sex marriage, and of painting President Obama as a "social radical" were released by a federal judge in Maine and published by the Human Rights Campaign.[150][151][152] The internal NOM documents state that they seek "to drive a wedge between gays and blacks" by promoting "African American spokespeople for marriage", thus provoking same-sex marriage supporters into "denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots", and to interrupt the assimilation" of Latinos into "dominant Anglo culture" by making the stance against same-sex marriage "a key badge of Latino identity". The documents also showed a goal to "sideswipe" US President Barack Obama by depicting him as a "social radical" via issues including child protection and pornography.

The revealed tactics were described as "one of the most cynical things I've ever heard"[155] and "scary"[156] by Julian Bond, Chairman Emeritus of the NAACP.[155] The National Black Justice Coalition said that the "documents expose N.O.M. for what it really is – a hate group determined to use African American faith leaders as pawns to push their damaging agenda.


 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
The documents also showed a goal to "sideswipe" US President Barack Obama by depicting him as a "social radical" via issues including child protection and pornography.
What's crazy about all of this is this is literally the exact same tactic used by the moral majority folks in the 80s that Card used to decry in his Secular Humanist Revival Meetings.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Yes, we're absolutely sure. That sort of information if fairly easy to find. It was started while he was a member of the board of directors.

Edit: Also, I don't really want to go into how complicit he was in the action, since presumably we don't have a transcript of the meeting that instituted that boycott. It's something of a moot point - as a member of the board of directors, he *was* responsible for the leadership of the NOM and the decisions it made. If he was opposed to the direction the NOM took in 2012 with boycotts (of which there is absolutely no evidence), it was his responsibility to resign. He didn't. (Though you could argue his eventual resignation the following year was due to him being uncomfortable with the direction the NOM was going, it was long after the Starbucks thing was old news)

The boycott was instituted in March 2012, Mr. Card joined NOM in 2009. So you are correct, it was late last night so I didn't try looking this stuff up.

But, and please understand I'm not especially comfortable with discussing conversations I've been privy to with the Cards, from what I gathered Mr. Card was not included in decisions being made. He was asked to join the board, consented, and then nothing...

And ultimately he left for reasons I'm sure were at least partially informed by that. He did not publicly make a statement however, opting to leave as anonymously as possible. I suspect because he didn't want to make a big deal of it, though he certainly took a lot of flak publicly when he joined.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:

But, and please understand I'm not especially comfortable with discussing conversations I've been privy to with the Cards,

This is completely understandable and just to be clear, I wasn't expecting you to do so.

quote:
from what I gathered Mr. Card was not included in decisions being made. He was asked to join the board, consented, and then nothing...

And ultimately he left for reasons I'm sure were at least partially informed by that. He did not publicly make a statement however, opting to leave as anonymously as possible. I suspect because he didn't want to make a big deal of it, though he certainly took a lot of flak publicly when he joined.

*nods* It sounds like they brought him on board for name recognition, not because they seriously valued or wanted his input. Which really sucks and puts in a difficult spot, but he could have resigned and publicly disavowed affiliation. The fact that he remained with them for 4 years, even after some truly reprehensible things they did came to light, makes it difficult for me to blame those who chose to boycott him. You know I don't support boycotts against his work any more than you do, but I can't say I think they're intolerant to do so.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Also, American Sniper is a strange movie to pick as a target for a "liberal vs. conservative" benchmark. It's an incredibly successful movie that has been received quite positively by the snobby ivory tower librul movie critics and has gotten 6 Academy Award nominations - including Best Picture - from the bastion of elitist America-hating artsy-fartsy intolerant liberalism itself - aka, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

No, you don't understand. See, because if it wins best picture, then it's because the sneering elitist liberal elites don't get the real message of the film, and have nominated it out of politically correct deference to veterans (which is of course totally phony and pathetic.)

If it doesn't win despite being nominated, then it is because the liberal elitist snobs could never allow a film with such a conservative message to be recognized for the high art that it really is.

That's the ballgame. Cardball.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
In addition to the problems OSC's faced, the Miss California incident, Chick-Fil-A, Mozilla and Duck Dynasty are great examples of intolerance over finding somebody doesn't support gay marriage. The pro-gay marriage side gets gung-ho about boycotts, and the other side points out that it's technically unfair/illegal to stop someone over an unpopular opinion.

It is neither "technically" unfair, nor illegal to stop someone from doing something for an unpopular opinion. Congress chooses not to confirm appointments because they have unpopular opinions, for example. We can stop allowing people to sell things to us for unpopular opinions. There are all kinds of modes in which we can punish people, in absolute fairness and legality, for their unpopular opinions, and we do it constantly, and that's a good thing.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
[QB] But, and please understand I'm not especially comfortable with discussing conversations I've been privy to with the Cards, from what I gathered Mr. Card was not included in decisions being made. He was asked to join the board, consented, and then nothing...

The hamfistedness of this as a justification for his current position on boycotts, generally, and on his involvement with NOM and Ender's Game specifically, is rather striking.

NOM invited him to be a member as a publicity move. He consented to do this. He accepted responsibility for the decisions they chose to make. No matter how much influence he had, he had the ability to announce his resignation. If he ws ignorant of their activities, that is his fault. I am not a member, much less a leader, of any political organization that is carrying out political activities that I have no knowledge of. To be in such a position would compromise my basic ethical responsibilities- and I am not a famous author.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
when you are literally a director of an organization on the literal board of directors, yeah, you have put yourself on a different standard of culpability and considerations for how much you can be said to be in accord with the acts of the organization by default.

he would have to issue some sort of public disavowal of NOM's actions before anyone should seriously protest that point or the point about his boycott hypocrisy. strangely however i am kind of inclined to think he's not interested in disavowing any of that.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
No, you don't understand. See, because if it wins best picture, then it's because the sneering elitist liberal elites don't get the real message of the film, and have nominated it out of politically correct deference to veterans (which is of course totally phony and pathetic.)

If it doesn't win despite being nominated, then it is because the liberal elitist snobs could never allow a film with such a conservative message to be recognized for the high art that it really is.

That's the ballgame. Cardball.

Well, we'll find out which version of reality is true come the 22nd.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
When you play the game of Cardball, you either win, or you aren't Orson Scott Card.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
And ultimately he left for reasons I'm sure were at least partially informed by that. He did not publicly make a statement however, opting to leave as anonymously as possible. I suspect because he didn't want to make a big deal of it, though he certainly took a lot of flak publicly when he joined.
I would if Card had a different history of political rhetoric on LGBT rights, and politics in general, personally be willing to accept such a benign explanation. But...I can't. I'm not asking you to comment on this yourself, BB, since I know you're in an akward position in such a discussion, but if one is going to lend the credibility and publicity of their name to an institution which organizes boycotts against a given cause, and remain silent on this boycott, and then years later bitterly and public resent (and insult) those who organize boycotts in support of that very same cause...

Well. Surely any ethical stance in such a case would at least involve a public statement along the lines of 'NOM once did this, but I did not support...' or 'NOM did this, and I did support it, but feel I was wrong...' or even the at least honest and open stance of 'NOM did this and I supported it, and now these guys do the opposite and I oppose it entirely not because I oppose boycotts but simply because they're wrong'...

To my knowledge, Card hasn't done that. I'll be happy to eat some crow if he has acknowledged what seems charitable to call hypocrisy so far as his stance on boycotts for social changes. I doubt that will be forthcoming, though. It also seems clear to me that he has become so reactionary and so defensive on some issues that the mere fact of someone he loathes-and surely it is fair to say he loathes almost all liberals now, isn't it? he's said as much-holds a position means he gets to despise it simply by virtue of who holds it.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It also seems clear to me that he has become so reactionary and so defensive on some issues that the mere fact of someone he loathes-and surely it is fair to say he loathes almost all liberals now, isn't it? he's said as much-holds a position means he gets to despise it simply by virtue of who holds it.

Yes, thus my response to his latest argument. By virtue of who I am, I (and actually, millions of other people) fall into several groups of people he loathes and lionizes simultaneously. His logic contradicts itself to the point where it's not even internally consistent or rational, and it's mostly because he can't seem to criticize a certain idea, political position, or even single person who holds that idea. Instead, he has to assign that idea to a whole group of people who are, by virtue of being in that group, inherently and always wrong by default.

Thus he can't say "I disagree with Michael Moore" or even "Michael Moore is a giant ass who makes a living by provoking people" (both of which I'd agree with), he makes it out that anyone who dislikes anything about the movie is a liberal - a sneering elitist America-hating liberal who hates the military and has never met a veteran to boot - and anybody who likes it is a conservative. Nevermind the overwhelming number of liberals who liked the movie (as Orincoro pointed out, they "like it for the wrong reasons"), or conservatives who dislike it for various reasons, or even veterans who dislike some aspects of how Chris Kyle is romanticized and the movie contains something of a unrealistic "Western-esque" showdown between good and evil that detracts from the larger story.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that if, say, Michael Moore had praised the movie or Eastwood hadn't spoken at the RNC in 2012, Card would've written a review tearing it apart as another example of Hollywood elitism and Clint Eastwood's incompetence as a director and his contempt for history.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Plot twist: Clint Eastwood is a supporter of gay marriage.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
http://i.imgur.com/ntaG7hO.jpg think this also upsets people?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
unironically indeed muslim and/or people of color in fantasy superhero roles offends the hell out of a lot of people

these people are very often a very specific type of people

this type is very predictable
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I admit at this point it's not surprising, it's more amusing really when Card gets going on the good old days and how awful dem lib'rls are and so on and so forth. Some gems:
quote:
Sometimes they get their way, but the "high culture" that our betters prescribe for us common Americans is not high. It's not even logical or self-consistent. For instance, our betters told us that for the sake of freedom of speech, we had to tolerate putting the F-word on T-shirts, and eventually into practically any movie with any pretension to be "high art." Hence the pointless single F-bomb in Julie and Julia and other such obvious efforts to be "brave" and "edgy."
I appreciate this for the way it's emblematic of grouchy old man who is seeing changes he doesn't like grumping. For one, there's the conflation of unrelated matters. It is a matter of freedom of speech that just because you or a bunch of people, even, view a word as offensive doesn't mean someone else should be disallowed from showing or saying that word in public. But it's a different question as to whether or not someone should be fired just for using a word, though there is some tie-in.

I love the fantasy he spins about how this sort of censorship from 'our betters' is something that has started since...strangely not long past his young adulthood (it's weird how often the world just goes straight to hell after that period in one's life!). Classic example: really? Was it really
black rappers and comedians who put the word 'nigger' into American culture? I could've sworn that that word was already there and in fact had been completely acceptable for generations before entering into a gradual decline, followed by a renewal of the use of the word in a very different spirit than in the past. One might almost think Card was either simply lazy or deliberately full of shit to portray this evolution of language as a straightforward triumph of liberal elites, and so obviously hypocritical.

One might ask a question like 'hey, should an elected official be held to a higher standard than an entertainer, especially when they're speaking, say, on the record about specific policy?' If you're some sort of godless American-hating liberal like myself, you might have the unmitigated gall to answer 'yes', but it's surely all part and parcel of my cabal's efforts to destroy Christianity and Republicans and (especially!) white men.

The funny thing, though, is that he's still got a handle on interesting questions such as the pitfalls of censorship (in theory, anyway) and the way such things seem to play out. I could retain some respect for his politics if he would at least cop to the plain fact that he doesn't really oppose this sort of thing in theory-ideas of censorship, of a particular group setting the tone for the culture, of marginalizing unwelcome ideas-he only actually dislikes it in practice when he's losing.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
black rappers and comedians who put the word 'nigger' into American culture? I could've sworn that that word was already there and in fact had been completely acceptable for generations before entering into a gradual decline, followed by a renewal of the use of the word in a very different spirit than in the past. One might almost think Card was either simply lazy or deliberately full of shit to portray this evolution of language as a straightforward triumph of liberal elites, and so obviously hypocritical.
OSC also famously self-censored the use of the N-word from the first edition of Ender's Game (the Novel).

And nobody fight me on this. It's definitely, definitely there.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I'm still stuck on the part about the single f-word in Julie and Julia being an attempt to be "edgy."
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
black rappers and comedians who put the word 'nigger' into American culture? I could've sworn that that word was already there and in fact had been completely acceptable for generations before entering into a gradual decline, followed by a renewal of the use of the word in a very different spirit than in the past. One might almost think Card was either simply lazy or deliberately full of shit to portray this evolution of language as a straightforward triumph of liberal elites, and so obviously hypocritical.
OSC also famously self-censored the use of the N-word from the first edition of Ender's Game (the Novel).

And nobody fight me on this. It's definitely, definitely there.

Mine had it, I was actually very confused as a kid because "Isn't Alai Muslim? Why... Why does that.." Wasn't first edition though.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
Mine had it, I was actually very confused as a kid because "Isn't Alai Muslim? Why... Why does that.." Wasn't first edition though.

Because there are definitely no black Muslims in the world.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure my copy has it too (wherever it is, it keeps getting lent out), and I don't think it's first edition. The first time I read EG (around 2000) it definitely had it. It was fairly shocking, though I think I took it as "we're at a point now (in the future, not our now) where racism is a joke because it's not something that exists in any way" sort of thing.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Past tense.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I figured as much, I just couldn't resist. [Razz]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
... it as "we're at a point now (in the future, not our now) where racism is a joke because it's not something that exists in any way" sort of thing.

Possibly the only way to truely irradicate racism...an attack by space aliens. We all n*ggers when the plasma bolts start flyin!
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
I'm still stuck on the part about the single f-word in Julie and Julia being an attempt to be "edgy."

It's edgydorable!
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
I love the fantasy he spins about how this sort of censorship from 'our betters' is something that has started since...strangely not long past his young adulthood (it's weird how often the world just goes straight to hell after that period in one's life!)
get off my lawn you damn generation that has different values and challenges than me and is trying to be more inclusive than i am. go achieve life markers we have largely put outside economic reach for you or i will mock your self-centeredness.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
oh and your music sucks, back in my day we weren't trying to be edgy we were just doing it right and didn't care about all this feminist liberal pc blather about school integration I MEAN title nine I MEAN gay marriage I MEAN literally thinking trans are human beings
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
The pro-gay marriage side gets gung-ho about boycotts, and the other side points out that it's technically unfair/illegal to stop someone over an unpopular opinion.
People do remember that OSC helped lead a boycott against Starbucks for supporting gay causes before people called for a boycott on Ender's Game, right? I feel like people seem to act like this didn't happen.
No, I don't remember this.
That's...well, I don't know what to say.

You were an active party in the conversation when it was first discussed. I've brought it up 4 times in conversations here about OSC being boycotted. I know that you were an active participant of at least three of those and one of them involved a back and forth between you and myself that spanned pages. It also was mentioned prominently in many of the calls for boycotting OSC, both about Superman and also Ender's Game.

Despite that, you followed up our conversation and these calls with some pretty nasty aspersions about everyone (you were clear too - "Really, everyone? you were asked. "Yes, everyone." you replied (quotes are not exact)) who supported boycotting OSC, claiming, if I can recall correctly (can't find it in search easily), that they are all only doing it out of hatred for OSC. It seemed at the time and still seems to me to be far out of character for you.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I suspect you might have a teensy little blind spot about certain aspects of this issue.

[ February 17, 2015, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
And ultimately he left for reasons I'm sure were at least partially informed by that. He did not publicly make a statement however, opting to leave as anonymously as possible. I suspect because he didn't want to make a big deal of it, though he certainly took a lot of flak publicly when he joined.
Is why he left really that much of a mystery to people? In response in part to his actions as a board member of NOM, including, again, leading a boycott against gay rights supporting businesses, OSC was in turn the target of a boycott.

To try to defend Ender's Game against this, he wrote a piece that essentially said "The fight against Gay Marriage no longer has any point. We've lost."

To me, this seemed obvious, but do people think that him, in an effort to protect his own interests, publicly effectively saying that NOM no longer has any purpose and donating money to them is essentially throwing it away might have played some role in him parting from the organization?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Plot twist: Clint Eastwood is a supporter of gay marriage.

I think the fun one is going to be if GWB comes out in support of gay marriage.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Does anyone care what past pres have to say? They have like equivalent clout to a sitting first lady. Eat your vegetables kids.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Usually (iirc) new presidents keep counsel of previous presidents to help with the transition and seek their advice on certain specific interests (such as foreign policy, re: Bill Clinton regarding the Norks).

The advantage of a democratic system with a peaceful transition of power is that all past presidents almost automatically become Elder Statesmen who can go around helping to advance American interests and act as good will ambassadors.

Experience is experience.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I think the fun one is going to be if GWB comes out in support of gay marriage.

It's not impossible. While he wasn't in favor of legalizing gay marriage in office, he fell well to the left of the party line when it came to the issue. And nowadays his views (pretty much "maybe we should just leave gay people alone, it's not really any of our business") make him sound like a practical Librul. (It's often amazing to see what a sharp turn to the right the Republican party has taken since 2008, that in retrospect Bush looks comparatively reasonable and moderate on a lot of issues)

As far as his personal views, in his autobiography Bush talks about Cheney bringing up the issue with him (Cheney being a gay marriage supporter) and him reassuring Cheney he had no problem with his views, which makes me think any opposition he had to it was out of loyalty to his political party. I can't think of Bush making any homophobic remarks (and expressed in a released private conversation that he had received some flak from Evangelical leaders for refusing to do so) and he never struck me as a particularly hateful person.

On the other hand, he's generally avoided making any political statements since he left office, and I don't think he would make any major announcement in support of gay marriage before the 2016 election. Especially since it's nearly a done deal - I think it'll probably be legal nation wide by the end of this year.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Sure, sure, but my comment was funny.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Can you -imagine- Obama calling up GWB for advice on foreign policy? I can't.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
That would be awesome DB!

Another ten or so & pot will be legal nationwide.

Then the real pary kicks off!

Yay liberty!
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Can you -imagine- Obama calling up GWB for advice on foreign policy?

Yes.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
As a prank?
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
No.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Um...isn't GWB known for his lackbof knowledge in that area? Or did I just pick that up from Wil Farrell & SNL?
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Um...isn't GWB known for his lackbof knowledge in that area?

Regardless of how competent he was a president, he has 8 years of experience in the office, has met with dozens of heads of states, handled numerous complex geopolitical issues, and had a grasp of the duties and responsibilities of the office - as well as some of the subtleties and nuances of presidential foreign policy and the current status quo - that Obama would definitely be interested in his advice. They met numerous times after the election to discuss the turnover of office, and I imagine Obama probably called him somewhat frequently during his first year. "Hey, you know president so-and-so of this country, what's your take on his current posturing?" or "what's up with Putin and not wearing shirts ever?", that sort of thing. Whether or not that actually happened I'm not sure, but I can certainly imagine it. I can even say I believe it to be likely.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Ahhh like the fbi & mob cooperating to fight the Nazis in the Rocketeer...partisanship pails in comparison to xenophobia (to couch it in the worst possible way).
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Even if it's granted that GWB was a uniformly terrible President (and my present opinion is that he was below average, let's say), there would still be potential value in asking for his input on some matters. Even if it were only to be seen asking, or just to evaluate what someone he disagreed with thought of a situation. Though that's not usually what's meant by 'advice'.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Bush, who left office in 2009 with a historically low popularity level, seems content in self-imposed exile. “I crawled out of the swamp, and I’m not crawling back in,” he said in a rare interview with the Hoover Institution this year.

 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
that he said this means that quite sincerely i think his is an opinion worth soliciting now on political affairs
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Even if it's granted that GWB was a uniformly terrible President (and my present opinion is that he was below average, let's say), there would still be potential value in asking for his input on some matters. Even if it were only to be seen asking, or just to evaluate what someone he disagreed with thought of a situation. Though that's not usually what's meant by 'advice'.

To clarify, my scenario is set in the first few months of the Obama presidency where his advice would be helpful, if only for continuity purposes. I doubt Obama calls him very much *now*.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
It was little known at the time, but GWB and Bill Clinton apparently talked quite often during the bush years- as in perhaps several times a week at some points.

If you think about it, it makes sense. There are very, very few people the President can talk to as a peer. A former president is on a similar level, is no longer seeking office, has similar experiences, etc.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Since The Imitation Game was discussed in this thread...did anyone see the screenwriter's acceptance speech last night? Moving stuff. He stood on stage and said that he tried to kill himself when he was a teenager because he was weird and didn't fit in and he dedicated the award to the kid out there that feels weird or different and that they should keep being weird and they will get their chance to pass on encouragement like he is. Kept in line with the message of the movie.

Also, continuing on that theme but irrelevant to this thread, this is a really powerful music video that I just saw. The lyrics, music, and video...worth watching.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I think the acceptance speech for Imitation Game, as well as the performance of "Glory" by John Legend were the highlights of the ceremony last night. Other than that night went more or less how I expected, though I was pleasantly surprised that Grand Budapest Hotel didn't win Best Picture. Really felt Boyhood got snubbed, as did Gone Girl. (which lost the only category it was even nominated for)
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Kurds in the M-E naming their children after Obama.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
which is worse, the oscars or the grammys
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
In general? Grammy.

Best is the Tonys.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
3 years out of the last 4, best picture has gone to a movie about Hollywood. So, yeah, stay relevant Academy.

I hated The Artist. I thought it was trumped up drivel. Argo was fine, but not a best picture in the same year as Amour, and I haven't yet seen Birdmsn, but I have seen all the other nominees. It would have to be pretty damned good to beat out that competition.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Best picture went to a movie about Hollywood, Best Actor and Best Actress went to actors who played people suffering from disability (despite Bradley Cooper and Benedict Cumberbatch giving superior performances (and I only exclude Steve Carrell because I didn't see his movie) and Rosamund Pike *completely* blowing the competition away), Gone Girl in general got completely ignored, Boyhood got mostly snubbed, Interstellar got snubbed. (coincidentally, my 3 favorite movies last year) It's more or less what I expected.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Gone girl was a clever thriller. Not anything on the level of Interstellar.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Very little is.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
It's becoming pretty obvious that to get them oscars, youmake a movie which plucks at the overweening pride of the types of people allowed to vote in the oscars

I like how brazenly ignorant the whole oscars assembly can be of entire movie categories too and still decide the winner. What percentage of the judges even saw half of the animated works to be voted on?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Free DVD for the grandkids.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
3 years out of the last 4, best picture has gone to a movie about Hollywood. So, yeah, stay relevant Academy.

I hated The Artist. I thought it was trumped up drivel. Argo was fine, but not a best picture in the same year as Amour, and I haven't yet seen Birdmsn, but I have seen all the other nominees. It would have to be pretty damned good to beat out that competition.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
There are many many movie awards contests. Why does this one get so much attention? If you think their methodology is garbage, don't watch, don't discuss and don't promote them. And don't be surprised if you disagree with how their choose their winners.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I am going to assume it has absolutely nothing to do with the motion picture industry, and no members of your family or close friends are involved either. I mean, if your first cousin was the best boy grip in Boyhood, and this award would have helped his career, sure, be upset on his behalf.

Otherwise, meh.

Though hate-watching can be fun. But the irrelevant stuff should be irrelevant.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Free DVD for the grandkids.

I went to college with someone whose grandfather was in the academy, and that's pretty much the case. Movie night for us! Wooo!

Then again, he was an animator (Snoopy stuff, I think), so I bet he did watch those ones. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Well I finally saw Birdman. Good grief, what a train wreck.

It's a depressing, meaningless little movie about wealthy middle-aged men and the things they find important. The sort of cynical, self-aggrandizing, artsy film full of dramatically-read non sequiturs that I'm sure the writer thought were deep and powerful but are mostly ridiculous. (especially the second "truth or dare" scene, good lord) There's also an attempted rape scene that's played for laughs; to help demonstrate the character of one of the men (the women are merely props), and it's about as horrifying as you might imagine.

The film is oppressively self-aware, and of course in the middle of it someone recites that soliloquy from Act V of Macbeth ("...told by an idiot, full of sound of fury, signifying nothing." blah blah blah) It's the film's way of crossing it's fingers and winking: "see, all of this is ok, because the movie is *really* a parody of itself! Aren't we clever?"

It's like that douchebag smartass you know who always hedges are his words in such a way that you're never sure if he's being glib or serious. So that way if he's ever pressed or called out on an opinion he expresses he can pretend he was "just being ironic." He thinks he's being wonderfully clever, everyone else knows he's just a coward.

This movie is the same way: even as it purportedly mocks the petty ambitions and lifestyle of rich old white men, it's still all about (and made for) them. It's trite, it's meaningless, and 20 years from now nobody will remember it.

There were films last year that actually *were* courageous and noble, or at least made the attempt. Interstellar was utterly brilliant and I think 50 years from now it will still be a beloved film, Boyhood was great, the Lego Movie was hilarious and very well made (and not even nominated), The Imitation Game was powerful and told a very important story that has been more or less swept under the rug for 60 years. The Theory of Everything was pretty pointless and utterly formulaic, but it was still pleasant to watch with beautiful cinematography and left you with a warm feeling at the end.

To answer theamazeeaz's question: I'm not especially angry about the Oscar results, I realize what they are and just like watching the show for the theatrics really. This is more of a desire to express what *I* think the best films of 2015 are, not disparage the Academy. I'll admit there is some frustration with the most prestigious film award going to movies like "Birdman", even though I know it doesn't change anything.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Free DVD for the grandkids.

I went to college with someone whose grandfather was in the academy, and that's pretty much the case. Movie night for us! Wooo!

Then again, he was an animator (Snoopy stuff, I think), so I bet he did watch those ones. [Big Grin]

Growing up, my friend's mom was a film critic and frequently brought home films for us to watch. There was some danger in this, though: when I was 16 my friend, his cousin and I were all hanging out one night and wanted to watch a movie. Looking through the DVDs "Hey mom, what's this 'Brokeback Mountain' about?" "Oh, I think it's a cowboy film. You boys will like it!"

That night was perhaps one of the most awkward nights of my young adult life.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
It's like that douchebag smartass you know who always hedges are his words in such a way that you're never sure if he's being glib or serious. So that way if he's ever pressed or called out on an opinion he expresses he can pretend he was "just being ironic." He thinks he's being wonderfully clever, everyone else knows he's just a coward.
[humor] Faster to just call me by name![/humor]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
The list of Unspeakable Words grows and grows, and we have to deal with all kinds of absurdities lest we give offense to this or that privileged group. It's as if the only group that it's all right to offend with "free" speech is the conservative Christian culture of the 1950s. That's how "Negro" became The Other N-word, and "of color" became preferred while "colored" became anathema.

So Mr. Tweedly definitely won that war.

Yet he also lost it, because the N-word has 100 percent penetration into our culture because of black comedians and rappers. That's because certain groups get a free pass. Rappers can say things about and to women that would get a Republican Congressman impeached. It's all about who can say what to whom, and the rules form such a maze that the only certainty is: If you're a white heterosexual male, or if you're a Republican or Christian of either sex, then whatever it is you said, it was wrong.

This is what inevitably happens when elitists get control of the culture. The culture of the previous in-group that is now the out-group must be suppressed and scorned, if not banned outright.

so basically white heterosexual males and or christians and republicans are the true suppressed and persecuted people because they get in trouble for saying nigger — thanks, elitists.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Holy shit.

Its like sure, sometimes some people get in trouble for saying something in arguably the correct context; the professor who got in trouble for saying "niggardly" comes to mind; but, really, if you think what the black rapper said was bad; then a public servant and elected official saying it is almost certainly worse why shouldn't he or she get impeached? A rapper is an entertainer, they have no responsibility to the public good, politicians are tasked with good governance!

In the correct context, when its clear you're not being a racist shill, then yeah, even as a white dude you're not going to get in trouble with the 'pc police'. George Carlin could say it just fine! Because he was making a point of how America was founded by a bunch of racist old privileged land owning undemocratic white men.

Argh.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
"political correctness gone MAD" people ****ing love the word niggardly, because it's a word no one uses that sounds almost exactly like YOU KNOW WHAT, so of course when someone drops it in a conversation (which NEVER happens because who the **** says niggardly) heads are going to turn. then they can say AHA it's not racist at all you're so sensitive what next are you going to have to call white people pigmentally challenged this is all nonsense aheh
i read this in, like, 2010

astounded it would end up relevant here
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I first learned what 'niggardly' meant after someone created some contrived moral outrage over it in high school. Since then I've literally never heard it used conversationally except for purposes of, or discussions about, said moral outrage.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
I first learned what 'niggardly' meant after someone created some contrived moral outrage over it in high school. Since then I've literally never heard it used conversationally except for purposes of, or discussions about, said moral outrage.

As someone who likes big words. Pretty much this.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I still read old stuff at work, so occasionally it shows up. Also Japanese light novels tend to use old words.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
"Talent" does not make a writer special; a writer who's a selfish jerk is a selfish jerk -- not one iota of that is taken away by the fact that he is also a writer.
ok
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Now we have Harris Teeter's solution: wheels that lock when you take a cart beyond the parking lot.

If you only take the cart from the store to a parking place in the lot directly in front of the store, you might not even realize that the wheels lock up. (It's only the right-rear wheel that has the locking device.)

But since I also stop at the dry cleaner in the same shopping center, I often park in that lot. My habit was to pick up a cart that someone had left in that area and bring it into the store; that way if I didn't bring my cart all the way back to the store, at least I left them no worse off than I found them.

However, Harris Teeter has decided that people who park anywhere west of the store rather than north of it can go hang themselves, for all they care. Twenty steps from the door of the store, when you're still in front of Harris Teeter's own building, your cart wheel jams up.

Apparently they hate the customers who dare to park in the perfectly legitimate parking spaces to the west of the store. There are no signs that say, "You can't bring carts out to this parking lot." You just find it out when your cart stops moving.

That's not nice. It's also not necessary. They could have established their perimeter to include that parking lot. Yes, there is no shopping cart corral in that area, but so what? A lot of people in the lot that has corrals still leave the carts stranded on medians or blocking parking places. They have to send employees out to pick up the dogies -- er, I mean, strays -- from the north lot. Why not a trip to the west that is no farther?

Oh, well. They never check with me when they make these decisions. Somebody in management decided to cause gross inconvenience to customers who don't park in the "true" parking places -- even though there is no sign to indicate that Harris Teeter customers are not allowed to park anywhere but due north of the store.

Not that it matters when I'm just running a quick errand and have only a couple of lightweight shopping bags with me. It's easy enough to leave the cart and carry the bags the rest of the way to my car.

But a parent with a child in the shopping cart, who has been given no warning, may find herself with a week's worth of groceries and a non-ambulatory child in a cart that now acts as if somebody had tossed an anchor overboard.

So ... what does she do? Obviously, she must abandon her groceries long enough to take her child to the car, strap him into the car seat, and then ...

Oh, wait. Isn't it illegal and, legal or not, foolish to leave a child in a closed car? So what do you do, leave the car doors open while you hike back to where you left the groceries?

And do you start the car so the air conditioning or heat will run? How safe is it to leave your keys and your baby in the car while you make the hike?

And what happens to your frozen foods during the six trips you have to take?

Oh, yes. You certainly learn never to park in the lot to the west of Harris Teeter.

But you may also learn that you would rather not shop at Harris Teeter at all, after they forced you, without warning, to go through all these extra trips and put your baby in danger in order to get everything you paid for out to your car.

The evil parking lots that you're punished for using are part of the same shopping center. But Harris Teeter has excommunicated the customers who park there -- without warning them.

There's a warning on the cart that tells you not to take the carts out of the parking lot. But since the lot to the west of the store is obviously part of the same shopping center, the sign is not helpful at all.

And it would have been so simple for them to establish a larger perimeter. They could have allowed their customers to shop at the other stores in the center, and take their carts with them to their cars. But they decided that they didn't care how much inconvenience they caused.

I can't help but wonder whether this was a chain-wide decision. Does every Harris Teeter now have carts that lock their wheels when you're still well within the parking lots associated with the shopping center? Does the Harris Teeter at Friendly Center, for instance, arbitrarily lock your cart's wheels if you parked near Red Mango rather than near REI?

Or was it just the store we shop at that received this special attention?

Bad management either way. The money they save by not having so many cart pickup runs a hundred yards to the west (while still having lots of them the same distance to the north) is not likely to repay the ill will created for all the customers who found themselves with an immobile cart full of groceries they now had to shuttle to their car by hand. How many of them will not come back?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3q2xa0aYl1qa5lfoo1_400.jpg
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Personally, it's a lot more efficient to talk to store management than to hope someone reads a particular column.
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
I have a habit of getting pissed off at something and swearing never to give a business my money ever again, and my friends all tell me the same thing. Talk to management, they'll never notice or change anything just because one dude stopped going there. And they're right, but I just don't care. The store has already wasted my time and I'm never going back, so what good does it do me to take another ten minutes to hunt down and talk to a manager?

Now, if somebody would actually pay me to complain about all these things on the internet, I'd be set for life...
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
All OSC's spoiled consumer nitpicking and ramblings about high end grocery stores really help put his opinions on the literary elite in proper perspective. I appreciate it for this.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
He's more than free to write about whatever he chooses - and I almost always just skip the sections where he talks about food, restaurants, specialty boutiques, etc. - but yeah, it is somewhat amusing to watch a guy who demonizes "the literary elite" for appreciating, teaching, or producing literature that the average American doesn't read turn around and spend a large chunk of his time reviewing extravagantly expensive snacks and tchotchkes (including maybe a small novels worth of writing on various chocolates and chocolate shops) that only a small percentage of Americans could afford to buy, and an smaller percentage who would appreciate. Maybe there's a lesson here about how writing things that only a small fraction of our society can really understand or appreciate isn't necessarily a sign of arrogance or contempt?

I suppose a similar concept for me is wine. I buy wine from Costco and usually spend $8-$10 a bottle, sometimes $15 a bottle if I'm drinking Pinot Noir. (which seems to be more expensive here) I know enough to differentiate between a Cabernet, a Merlot, a Pinot, and a Zinfandel. I know I think white wine tastes nasty and generally avoid it. My wife and I have a favorite wine we have only been able to find at one restaurant (and realize it's probably our favorite for that exact reason) and we had a really fun time getting lectured by the world's snobbiest Frenchman in this beautiful little winery in Bordeaux... but if I'm honest with myself one brand tastes as good as any other and I don't think I'll ever have the time or interest to build a wine collection or become an expert, so I'm more than happy to stick to buying $10 bottles of wine from Costco.

But that doesn't somehow translate into spite or open contempt on my part for wine experts, even if they might appreciate the flavor and subtlety of wines I frankly find unappealing, or even nasty tasting. Nor do I think it's a travesty that a Wine Expert certification course (apparently a real thing) teaches people to identify subtle hints and flavors most wine drinkers are ignorant of, or don't even care about. As a consumer I might find it a little silly (just as I find most of OSC's quest to find the perfect gourmet snack food silly), but why should I care?
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
Mr. Card has written about the deliciousness of orange juice and Diet Coke, as well as why the hamburger is a fantastic food invented by people working with whatever they had. But more importantly, he would probably be the first to poke fun at how he can only enjoy certain kinds of higher-end foods as opposed to their cheaper versions. He admits to being a food snob.

But he certainly wouldn't write a column that in all seriousness talks about how people who like mild cheddar cheese are ignoramuses, or that the existence of cheaper foods somehow lessens the food industry or speaks poorly of us as a society.

edit: And as somebody who has taken a meal with Mr. Card, he reminds me very much of my fiance. They both love variety and staples in food. It's not the price or accessibility that matters. They just love what tastes good, no matter where it's found.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I think you completely misread me: I don't think it's a bad thing at all that Mr. Card is a food snob. Quite the opposite, actually. I just think his hostility for "elitists" in other fields (including frequent attacks on university English departments) is uncalled for.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
And you also bring up another good point that I was kind of getting at: being an "elitist" by no means implies scorn for more pedestrian things.

Quite frankly, I think University English departments *should* take a somewhat elitist approach to teaching literature. Because why else would you spend 4 years and $100k getting an English degree unless it was to learn all the subtleties and nuances and literary devices you need to appreciate literature? This is coming from a dopey jarhead who has avoided the liberal arts like a plague; but if I were to spend my hard earned money on a college literature class, I should certainly hope I would be taught all of that and more.

Likewise, I would feel gypped if I got into a prestigious culinary school and all I learned was how to cook hamburgers. Hamburgers are my favorite food on the planet and they're awesome and everybody likes them - and you get even make incredibly gourmet, fancy $50 hamburgers - but there's something to be said for the finer things in life. An appreciation for - indeed even something of a snobbery towards - complex and difficult literature, or fine wine, or great food is not a *bad* thing. And Mr. Card seems to have realized and even embraced this when it comes to food, and yet is pretty indiscriminately hostile towards "elitism" in almost any other field.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
I think you are missing my point as well. Getting an expensive degree in say culinary school shouldn't remove your ability to enjoy a candy bar any more than my MBA makes me see a dollar on the ground and smirk because it's all about the Benjamins.

If either of those things were true, then we'd be on the track for Mr. Card's contempt. His contempt seems confined to literary critics who see inaccessibility and apathy/hatred for the common man as things to be embraced.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
He certainly portrays the "elitists" he denigrates as being that way for sure, but it's my experience that he paints with far too broad a brush here. There are a lot of articles where he straight up denounces English professors (not just literary critics) and writers who appreciate, teach, or propagate "inaccessible" works because he *thinks* focusing on such things implies contempt for the common man, even when evidence of that hatred seems to be nonexistent. Experience has taught me this is categorically untrue: I have a friend who's an English professor and loves Harry Potter and Dan Brown novels (of all things)... enjoying - or even dedicating your career towards - something obscure or mostly inaccessible doesn't necessarily mean you disdain the "common man" for not enjoying what you do. (Unless you want to start calling anime nerds elitists)

Put another way: there are arrogant elitist pricks in every occupation and hobby. I've had the misfortune of meeting people who openly mock "poor people food", seen wine aficionados who openly mock people who drink cheap wine, met *plenty* of computer nerds utterly despise "casual gamers" and their ilk (and I think this is the cause of a lot of the misogyny in "#gamergate"), and yes, I've seen (but never met) literary critics who denounce "pedestrian" work as drivel and bemoan the plight of the uneducated masses, because they're soulless pompous blowhards.

Mr. Card is a writer, and a writer in a field that has been subjected to mockery by said blowhards, so he's probably a lot more than his fair share of that sort of nonsense and more sensitive to it than either of us. I don't think his response - conflating the entire literary establishment with some of the assholes in it, or especially going after English programs just for *teaching* the literary fiction tropes and devices he dislikes - is really justified or productive. I'm not convinced the academia is any more festooned with "elitists" (as he describes the term) than any other profession.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Its because those Elitist Liberals are working against the interests of the moral silent majority.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
Dogbreath: It not being as wide-spread a problem to you seems to be at the heart of the disagreement then. It seems Mr. Card perceives it to *be* a huge problem.

You both probably have very different life experiences and run with far different social circles. I can't really judge whether you are right or he is, but I think we both agree that people who *only* like inaccessibility are kind of obnoxious.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct:
I have a habit of getting pissed off at something and swearing never to give a business my money ever again, and my friends all tell me the same thing. Talk to management, they'll never notice or change anything just because one dude stopped going there. And they're right, but I just don't care. The store has already wasted my time and I'm never going back, so what good does it do me to take another ten minutes to hunt down and talk to a manager?

Now, if somebody would actually pay me to complain about all these things on the internet, I'd be set for life...

I *think* OSC does the column for free.

I also feel that since the shopping cart protection is new (though this has been around for years in much less nice places, along with the ones that make you pay a quarter) nobody has told the management the perimeter is in the wrong spot and the odds are pretty good some manager isn't cackling in an office somewhere
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I get where Card is coming from on the English Department thing. There's some English teachers who flat out refuse to acknowledge that SF has anything of merit whatsoever (the pulp heritage doesn't help).

Like, when Kazuo Ishiguro writes a book about the coming of age of three kids who don't care to tell the reader that they are clones who were raised to be organ donors (in a very fatal sense) and everyone flips out (sorry I just ruined that book for y'all)), but yeah, modern SF has been there, done that and bought the t-shirt. And the stuff Margaret Atwood says is not very nice either.

But apparently, there are people doing their degrees on fanfic, comics and SF these days, so I think you people get that you have to analyze what people read (Twilight and Harry Potter).

As for food, I take comments on my culinary preferences a lot differently than I do my personal politics, my ethics/religion and my job.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Dogbreath: It not being as wide-spread a problem to you seems to be at the heart of the disagreement then. It seems Mr. Card perceives it to *be* a huge problem.

You both probably have very different life experiences and run with far different social circles. I can't really judge whether you are right or he is, but I think we both agree that people who *only* like inaccessibility are kind of obnoxious.

But elite education isn't about only liking inaccessible things; it is about making quality things accessible.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
*nods* Yes, most of the educators I know are rather passionate about sharing the knowledge necessary to understand their area of expertise, as well as their love for it, as much as possible. In layman's terms, "geeking out." I honestly think the imagery of liberal elitists sitting in their ivory towers, sipping wine and eating fine cheeses, scorning the common man and hating America while reading each other passages from Ulysses, is patently absurd. I also realize Mr. Card often employs hyperbole as a rhetorical device (as do I), but even so it seems mis-aimed. I do think he and I have vastly different life experiences - if I were in his shoes, I would probably be far more cynical of the literary establishment too.

The whole Sci-Fi issue *is* a legitimate complaint, though I think that comes more from ignorance or a rather infantile understanding of literature than hatred of the common man:

I remember several years ago I loaned a few of my Vonnegut novels to a friend of mine, and he absolutely loved them, so I gave him my copy of The Last Defender of Camelot and he told me "oh... well I don't know if I would like Sci-Fi stories."

"But all of the Vonnegut books I gave you were Sci-Fi"

"Well, yeah, but they weren't *real* Sci-Fi, right? He just used Sci-Fi trappings to tell stories about the human psyche, or maybe about culture and society or, I dunno, life that he would have trouble telling in a more conventional novel."

"...what exactly do you think Sci-Fi is, man?"

I think he, like many others, have conflated science fiction with mindless, juvenile Star Wars Episode 1 esque adventure and with lasers and explosions without seeing past the surface. That attitude mostly evaporated before my lifetime, though - Star Trek (a show Mr. Card ironically disliked) and the Twilight Zone and others introduced the mainstream to the idea of serious science fiction, and I grew up in the culture they helped create and permeate.
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
*nods* Yes, most of the educators I know are rather passionate about sharing the knowledge necessary to understand their area of expertise, as well as their love for it, as much as possible. In layman's terms, "geeking out." I honestly think the imagery of liberal elitists sitting in their ivory towers, sipping wine and eating fine cheeses, scorning the common man and hating America while reading each other passages from Ulysses, is patently absurd. I also realize Mr. Card often employs hyperbole as a rhetorical device (as do I), but even so it seems mis-aimed. I do think he and I have vastly different life experiences - if I were in his shoes, I would probably be far more cynical of the literary establishment too.

The whole Sci-Fi issue *is* a legitimate complaint, though I think that comes more from ignorance or a rather infantile understanding of literature than hatred of the common man:

I remember several years ago I loaned a few of my Vonnegut novels to a friend of mine, and he absolutely loved them, so I gave him my copy of The Last Defender of Camelot and he told me "oh... well I don't know if I would like Sci-Fi stories."

"But all of the Vonnegut books I gave you were Sci-Fi"

"Well, yeah, but they weren't *real* Sci-Fi, right? He just used Sci-Fi trappings to tell stories about the human psyche, or maybe about culture and society or, I dunno, life that he would have trouble telling in a more conventional novel."

"...what exactly do you think Sci-Fi is, man?"

I think he, like many others, have conflated science fiction with mindless, juvenile Star Wars Episode 1 esque adventure and with lasers and explosions without seeing past the surface.

It's not necessarily that extreme.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
What isn't exactly?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
CALM DOWN MAN!
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Dogbreath: It not being as wide-spread a problem to you seems to be at the heart of the disagreement then. It seems Mr. Card perceives it to *be* a huge problem.

You both probably have very different life experiences and run with far different social circles. I can't really judge whether you are right or he is, but I think we both agree that people who *only* like inaccessibility are kind of obnoxious.

But elite education isn't about only liking inaccessible things; it is about making quality things accessible.
That isn't the kind of elite Mr. Card is talking about, I suspect.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
elitist qua elitist
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
The problem here is it becomes a little difficult to pin down exactly what elitists Mr. Card is talking about. (see my take on his article on American Sniper earlier in this thread) Of course he's going to ascribe to them all the qualities we've discussed - the sneering, the contempt for the common man, etc. - but the title itself seems to get applied to more or less anyone who disagrees with him politically or philosophically, and their disagreement is taken as sure proof that they meet the definition. Reasons for disagreeing with him that don't involve being a sneering liberal elitist are either dismissed as being a minority position, or ignored entirely. This means that even when he and I share the same views on things (which we actually do more often than not) like American Sniper, the way he castigates those who disagree with him makes me deeply uncomfortable.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
If one were to ctrl+f "elit*" in card's infamous contemporary batch of articles, in all his columns from "world watch" to "orson scott card gets his jimmy-jams in a caterwauly jump-a-skitter bout all sort-a things, i reckon" and really do an in depth analysis of how he uses 'elitist' and why and in what manner these things are predictably used to ascribe associated manner and agenda, it would really I think show that what dogbreath is saying is correct.

i don't know if i am necessarily intent on actually doing the research to back this up or anything, i just really needed a chance to type "orson scott card gets his jimmy-jams in a caterwauly jump-a-skitter bout all sort-a things, i reckon"

/edit also this is post 14444 of mine so i'm just going to leave that right where it is for tonight, go to sleep, realize i've typed over ten thousand posts on this forum, and SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT MY CHOICES IN LIFE
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
What isn't exactly?

The part where you explain why someone else would disagree with you. You took a really dumb mindset and projected it on people who don't like science fiction, and pushed it in front of any alternative mindset they could possibly have.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
What isn't exactly?

The part where you explain why someone else would disagree with you. You took a really dumb mindset and projected it on people who don't like science fiction, and pushed it in front of any alternative mindset they could possibly have.
The conversation I referenced actually happened. I wasn't projecting that mindset on him, it was the mindset he conveyed. I'm sure people have all sorts of different reasons being dismissive of science fiction (and there's a big difference there between not liking it I think), some more cogent than others. But at the core of every reason I've seen offered so far seems to be a belief that Sci-Fi is fundamentally silly or inconsequential. That doesn't preclude the existence of alternative mindsets on the issue, nor does it mean there aren't varying levels even within the one I've presented. (you might simply believe Sci-Fi's ludicrous trappings make it an ineffective means of conveying deeper meaning while still acknowledging the attempt, for example)
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
I don't thing that indicates that he thinks science fiction is "like Star Wars Episode 1". There's plenty of ground in between Episode 1 and Vonnegut.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
His internal definition of science fiction (because he had never really read any until Vonnegut) was one chiefly defined by the props therein: lasers, spaceships, aliens, the future, action, adventure; fun and exciting, but of no great consequence.* So when he first read science fiction that actually meant something to him, that he felt contained something true and profound, his first response was to (errantly IMO) assume what he was reading wasn't really sci-fi because it didn't match his internal definition of the genre.

I don't think this was particularly dumb, btw. He's a very bright guy and went on to devour most of my sci-fi novels and anthologies once he realized the potential the genre held. His wife and he got to meet Ursula K. Leguin a few years back, of which I am quite jealous. And I've met or read other people who do the same thing: they try to explain why a sci-fi book that meant something to them isn't *really* sci-fi, or even making statements like "I know it's it's technically a sci-fi book, but..." There seems to be a somewhat prevalent misconception that once a work *starts* being meaningful it *stops* being science fiction, which implies a belief that science fiction is or should be viewed as base or juvenile, or at least implies an unnecessarily narrow definition.

*And were you to actually conglomerate all those elements you might end up with something like Episode 1, thus the "esque." But if the analogies I’m using to describe this phenomenon are that inept or distracting, then I’m more than happy to retract them.
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
Alright, fair enough.

It came off as an awkward paraphrase to me. I don't really like the style arguement where someone speaks on another opinions behalf, and it tends to disagree with me. Its just really common on the internet, and sometimes its really egregious and I get distracted whenever I see it, or something that resembles it.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Just an awkward analogy. [Smile]
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I think its because my first scifi *was* pretty much Ender's Game sans the odd Star Trek Voyager/Sliders episode on the snow channel on my pre-cable TV; which as the 16 year old I was pretty much was, spoke to me very deeply and as such I feel I've always felt that Scifi *is* in fact very meaningful, albeit I do come up with two broad definitions:

(1) Science Fiction as speculative fiction. These sorts of stories are more about exploring the author's interest in a given subject manner, or exploring what he feels society or what have you would be like "Should X be wide spread." I'll throw in MilWank HFY (Humanity EEEF YEAH!) stories in this category and all similar (Honor Harrington, etc).

(2) Stories that really want to tell a story but just want the theme/trappings of being scifi.

Star Wars would be (2), Ender's Game is more (1) but the thing about this definition is that I don't feel they are mutually exclusive, they're just useful.

Like Star Trek certainly ping pongs episode to episode!

The ultimate exteme example of (1) Would probably Harry Turtledove A-Hist novels in that they barely contain a plot and typically lack narrative but are ALLL ABOOOOOUT the speculation! (Not scifi but are an example of the extreme end of the spectrum unless we assume Alien Space Bats were involved in every novel!)
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
For me speculative fiction is a branch of sci-fi that is similar to historical fiction...not far off from current & based on reality.

Where as Sci-fi is more fantasy in a futuristic type setting instead of a magic fueled one. StarWars is a classic example of this...an old wizard, a rouge captain & super tough first mate with a young orphan saving a princess from a dark lord. Minus the "light" part of the sabre and switch up space for sailing shipsand StarWars is basically D&D.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Star Wars is "Space Opera," a particular branch of SF that is adventure stories with a space setting.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I've heard of it...

I like Urban Dictionary's definition:

quote:
Star Wars:
The epic story about the dysfuctional Skywalker family.


 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
One of the interesting things that cropped up from discussions about space opera and other sci fi sub genres or pseudo whatevers is that s lot of people's definition of sci fi ends up being "if you say it is in the future and or throw in some fantastical technology and or aliens and or have it be in space or on a different planet it becomes sci fi"

Which is weird
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
As to instead, Neuromancer, that's cyberpunk and cool and totally not scifi guyz.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
One of the interesting things that cropped up from discussions about space opera and other sci fi sub genres or pseudo whatevers is that s lot of people's definition of sci fi ends up being "if you say it is in the future and or throw in some fantastical technology and or aliens and or have it be in space or on a different planet it becomes sci fi"

Which is weird

Well, as I think OSC put it many years ago, that is what happens when you win. Sci-fi as a genre has generated a huge portion of the lastingly relevant literature in the last century: 1984, The Time Machine, Brave New World, Ender's Game, Fahrenheit 451, Slaughterhouse 5, The Mars Trilogy, etc etc. People reliably read sci-fi classics for way longer than most other "genre" fiction, because sci-fi has been at the center of literary innovation since the turn of the previous century.

The only problem is that people have been taught to think of "literature" as being divorced from genre fiction. So the great sci-fi pieces are no longer "sci-fi," even when they really are, and always were.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Well, the latest article is off to a great start:

quote:
...but with Obama as the sorriest commander in chief in American history, if Congress doesn’t lead, nobody will.
Someone call Andrew Johnson and let him know!
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I would say it's becoming absurd... but it's been so absurd for so long. Now this is more like a sport for me. Just a hobby to see where the crazy is leading now.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
For me it's a game of 'so partisan he's crazy vs. deceitful political opportunist vs. crass column writing opportunist who knows his audience'. Because even after so many columns, it's difficult to imagine the author of books like Pastwatch and Ender's Game, though they were a long and a very long time ago, would be ignorant of American history enough to include dudes like Johnson and find Obama wanting.

But then you get his nakedly hypocritical whining about boycotts against his own film, or Chik-fil-A and I can't help but wonder if this is simply who he is now in terms of politics.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I don't know. He spent a good 500 words in his last column explaining, in detail, why he doesn't care about celebrities, and how much fun he has looking at pictures of celebrities, and the satisfaction he feels at not caring about them. Bizarre.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Mr. Card has a far, far stronger grasp on American history (specifically 19th century American history) than I do. I'm pretty sure (or at least, I very much hope) he knows just how rediculously hyperbolic his statements about Obama are. The question is whether he thinks his audience will catch on and he's doing it in a tounge-in-cheek manner (which he's certainly implied before), or if he realizes there are quite a few of his readers who will take it at face value - or even have that belief reinforced because someone as intelligent and educated as him said it - and is intentionally pandering. The fact that the bulk of the article is pretty critical of the Republican party means he might just be playing up the Obama-hate to make his readers think "I'm really on your side" (which is still deceptive), but he's made more than enough looney statements like that uncouched in any such terms that I sincerely doubt it.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I don't know. He spent a good 500 words in his last column explaining, in detail, why he doesn't care about celebrities, and how much fun he has looking at pictures of celebrities, and the satisfaction he feels at not caring about them. Bizarre.

To be fair, this seems to be a pastime of a significant number of bored people, if the recommended articles on my facebook news feed are any indication. "Look at these celebs doing everyday shit like shopping/eating a sandwich/doing their laundry/going on a walk with their kids. See, they're just like us! Isn't that fascinating?"
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
The main thing I would want to pick the dude's brain about would be to get him to explain the Schrödingerian superposition that Obama exists in as described in sum in Card's screeds.

Obama exists simultaneously as (1) comically inept and wholly useless, and (2) the most terrifyingly effective, scheming, dangerous dismantler and desecrator of real american values and intentional corrupter of the office of the presidency. I just want to know what happens when the discrepancy in how he is described is forced to be confronted. When the waveform collapses, which Obama remains? Is Obama a saturday morning cartoon villain, the most implausible threat to society, who is so inept as to fail at everything and yet inexplicably remains perpetually the darkest and most frightening specter of evil across the whole land of white and delightsome peoples?
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Why not both?
Sort of like Jar Jar Binks.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Man, President Skeletor would be awesome.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8089639/obama-derangement-syndrome

^ worldwatch.txt
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
The main thing I would want to pick the dude's brain about would be to get him to explain the Schrödingerian superposition that Obama exists in as described in sum in Card's screeds.

Obama exists simultaneously as (1) comically inept and wholly useless, and (2) the most terrifyingly effective, scheming, dangerous dismantler and desecrator of real american values and intentional corrupter of the office of the presidency. I just want to know what happens when the discrepancy in how he is described is forced to be confronted. When the waveform collapses, which Obama remains? Is Obama a saturday morning cartoon villain, the most implausible threat to society, who is so inept as to fail at everything and yet inexplicably remains perpetually the darkest and most frightening specter of evil across the whole land of white and delightsome peoples?

Tenets of Ur-Fascism.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
In Paris, when they hear you butchering French, they deliberately speak French more rapidly, and with a more obscure vocabulary, until you're so humiliated you can hardly breathe. That is, if they don't ignore you completely.

Then, if money is involved, they'll take yours and give you the thing you thought you were trying to buy. But never will they show you any pity.

That's Paris. As people in Provence said, "They treat us that way, too." It's nice to know that Parisians are rude even to French people with a regional accent, and not just to Americans.

But they do take special pleasure in being rude to Americans.

I went to Paris a couple of years ago. My wife and I stayed there for a week. Now I speak French pretty well, but I'd be kidding myself to say I don't have an accent. Yet I didn't once run into anyone who gave bad customer service or snubbed me. Everyone was conversant and some even went out of their way to compliment me on my French. The only time I can think of not getting great customer service was at a restaurant and I couldn't get the waiter's attention. Then I had an idea and flipped my utensils over and angled them on my plate at about 4 o'clock. The waiter was at our table instantly. Over there they seem to let you enjoy the dinner and converse instead of bothering you every two minutes to make sure everything is OK. So it was just a culture difference, not a snub, and once I figured out the rule it was simple to adjust to.

Anyway, all this to say is this a stereotype that is lingering around from the past? I suspect France was like that in the 70's, 80's and maybe 90's but I would guess that things have changed. Does anyone else have more recent experience in France. Perhaps someone with less proficient (or more proficient) French than I?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
http://www.myparistrips.com/frenchcultureandcustoms.html

quote:
On a side note, the U.S. media-fueled stereotype of the rude, American-hating French is truly utterly ridiculous, and only propagated by people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Myself, all my friends and everyone I know in France grew up LOVING everything American. There is a big difference between being put off by certain Americans, and hating Americans in general. France and the U.S. have always been enamored with one another, even in disagreement and in spite of cultural differences.

 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I was in France last October and I can say everyone we met was absolutely delightful and very polite and kind. They were more than willing to smile at our (very bad) French and speak to us in English if they knew it. We spent several days in Paris and a few more in Bordeaux.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
Good to know it's not just me then.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I got made fun of for mispronouncing a word in while attending a show in Paris (monsieur*), which made me feel pretty shitty, because I'm generally very very good with French. This was 2011.

I'm still bitter about it.

On that same trip, my French was good enough to chew out a waiter for screwing up our bill (basically they had one extra person down for three courses instead of two), and to understand how to get to the airport by public transit, in spite of the grève that was going on at the moment, based on the instructions of the lady at our hotel desk.

In college I took a class on the French perceptions of America, and one of the things that was pointed out was that there has never been a wave of French immigration (Québec, yes). So, there were never a group of French to melt into American society, and also, they never needed to use us to deal with an economic/social/religious crisis, which is where immigration waves come from.

**It's mis-see-ur, not mis-shurr, which is very easy to do when your tongue is lazy.

[ April 16, 2015, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
On another note, one of my co-workers is a Frenchman, and another lived in Paris for about a year.

I once asked if there was an unfashionable place in France to be from, and my French co-worker answered, "Paris". This was in the context of the other co-worker's time there though, so he might have been joking.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
my friends who have lived in paris have a 50/50 split, almost, between "it was an ok place" or "i understand now why most of the country hates parisians"
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
I was in France last October and I can say everyone we met was absolutely delightful and very polite and kind. They were more than willing to smile at our (very bad) French and speak to us in English if they knew it. We spent several days in Paris and a few more in Bordeaux.

People are generally nice to you when you are spending money. That is not a new trope- it was a refrain in Hemingway's first novel The Sun Also Rises, fittingly about an American living in Paris.

Also, I'm convinced that certainly people are just likable, and so are treated well everywhere they go. I am one such person- it is very rare for me to have a bad encounter with anyone while traveling, and I have spent cumulatively months in Paris over the years. I can always *see* why people think Parisians are rude generally (because they are), but I can also see how the people who tell me this are the ones who don't know how to elicit respect as foreign visitors. If you are observant, and behave in a way that pleases people, you will be treated well.

I've lived in the Czech Republic now for many years. Having learned the language and gotten to know the people very well, I can see why foreigners think they're rude, but I can also see things from the Czech perspective. There are just basically different ways of behaving, and showing people deference and respect, but also projecting confidence. Travelers have a hard time know what projecting confidence and respectfulness means in foreign cultures, and how to go about doing it- they look at things with too much of their own cultural filters attached. If you can let these go, people will feel more at ease in your presence, and so treat you better.

Half the time, I suspect that foreign visitors simply *don't know* when they're being treated with respect- and so they interpret social cues incorrectly, and negatively, when it isn't warranted. This could take the form of anything: here, for example, a waiter doesn't necessarily verbally respond to a request. They simply do it. This is considered to be respectful, and even discrete. Foreign visitors understandably see it as rude, because to them it would be, whereas a chatty waiter here is considered overbearing, rather than charming. On the other hand, you *are* expected to say something if you wish to pass someone on an escalator or through a doorway. So visitors often get snarky comments or bad looks from locals when they do not excuse themselves properly. If you watch carefully, you can see and adapt to these differences fairly easily.

[ April 17, 2015, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I'm from New England, and I stayed there for college. A great many students from the south complained about how *unfriendly* everyone was because they didn't say hello to everyone on the street.

... I think I would go crazy if people did that to me.

My understanding is that NYC is more extreme than NE in this regard, and Paris probably more so.

I read somewhere that cultures where people are spread out, but need to greet each other are actually more violent and backstabby than people who are packed in and pretend others aren't there. I get the impression, Parisians are just very honest about their indifference.

For a good time, I recommend going to TripAdvisor, sorting for the most expensive hotels in Paris, and then sorting by one star reviews. There are a shocking number of people who don't think the desk staff fawned enough upon their arrival.

Oops.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
I read somewhere that cultures where people are spread out, but need to greet each other are actually more violent and backstabby than people who are packed in and pretend others aren't there.

I hear things like this a lot. Especially in reference to the South. To me it usually comes of as someone sneering at the culture and saying how their own culture is much better. That or rationalizing their own crappy behavior.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
People are generally nice to you when you are spending money. That is not a new trope- it was a refrain in Hemingway's first novel The Sun Also Rises, fittingly about an American living in Paris.

The vast majority of interactions I had were with people I wasn't giving money to, though. And the people I did spend money to (like this wonderfully snobby clerk at a little wine shop in Bordeaux) didn't seem to *care* that I was or act obsequiously like they do in the states, which I suppose I could see people viewing as rude. For me it just felt nice.

quote:
Also, I'm convinced that certainly people are just likable, and so are treated well everywhere they go. I am one such person- it is very rare for me to have a bad encounter with anyone while traveling, and I have spent cumulatively months in Paris over the years. I can always *see* why people think Parisians are rude generally (because they are), but I can also see how the people who tell me this are the ones who don't know how to elicit respect as foreign visitors. If you are observant, and behave in a way that pleases people, you will be treated well.
I can see that as well. I've travelled many, many, many times in the past 6 years and my wife spent most of her childhood travelling, and I don't think either of us has had a particularly bad experience anywhere we've gone. We both smile easily and speak quietly, and try and dress appropriately for wherever we go.

I think that can make a difference - we were eating dinner in a restaurant in Paris - where we were conversing quietly, spoke to our waiter and ordered in French, and had dressed up nicely - when an Australian couple walked in. They were wearing shorts and t-shirts, were both pretty heavily overweight (which seems very unusual in France), and spoke loudly enough where we could hear everything they were saying from the other side of the restaurant. I could totally see them going back home and talking about how rude and awful people in Paris were to them.

quote:
I've lived in the Czech Republic now for many years. Having learned the language and gotten to know the people very well, I can see why foreigners think they're rude, but I can also see things from the Czech perspective. There are just basically different ways of behaving, and showing people deference and respect, but also projecting confidence. Travelers have a hard time know what projecting confidence and respectfulness means in foreign cultures, and how to go about doing it- they look at things with too much of their own cultural filters attached. If you can let these go, people will feel more at ease in your presence, and so treat you better.

Half the time, I suspect that foreign visitors simply *don't know* when they're being treated with respect- and so they interpret social cues incorrectly, and negatively, when it isn't warranted. This could take the form of anything: here, for example, a waiter doesn't necessarily verbally respond to a request. They simply do it. This is considered to be respectful, and even discrete. Foreign visitors understandably see it as rude, because to them it would be, whereas a chatty waiter here is considered overbearing, rather than charming. On the other hand, you *are* expected to say something if you wish to pass someone on an escalator or through a doorway. So visitors often get snarky comments or bad looks from locals when they do not excuse themselves properly. If you watch carefully, you can see and adapt to these differences fairly easily.

Having lived everywhere from Japan - where people are generally very quiet and reserved, respect and cleanliness are very important (you are expected to take off your shoes and wash your hands before entering a restaurant, or sometimes even just ordinary places of business), and it's extremely uncommon to speak to or interact with strangers - to the Philippines, where it's common to have people come and talk to you on the street, or grab your shoulder for attention, or (in my case) touch your hair because it looks so unusual... I think so long as you're friendly and not arrogant or presumptuous and pay attention to your surroundings, you do just fine. Going somewhere foreign and expecting people to treat you according to *your* cultural mores and speak to you in your language - and then getting offended when they don't do so - will certainly make you feel like you've been treated rudely, or might even make people treat you rudely.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I don't have the article, and I tried to google it, but it was a hard one with the keywords.

I think the gist was that it's a holdover from the dueling days and honor culture, and the statisticians could pull out a pretty good correlation among different areas within the south itself.

If I knew where I read it, I would know how much of it is prejudice.

But to be fair, there's not really a Northern equivalent of "bless your heart".
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Europeans will tend to say that they have no problem with individual Americans, but a lot of them, especially in the younger liberal crowd, will proudly talk about how awful the US and always has been. I dated a Greek woman for a while, and one night a her saying she would rather her country be under Putin's influence then America's brought me to ask her to name three positive things either about the US or that the US has done. The most intelligent person I have ever met, and she literally could not do it.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/32xyr1/okay_whats_right_with_america/
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Talking about lying about tax policy in the United States, I admire Card's chutzpah to on the one hand claim Reid was lying about Romney* and on the other hand say with apparently a straight face, "Every "loophole" in the tax law was put there by Congress in order to create a cash incentive..."

Ha. Certainly none of the reams and reams^25th of loopholes (I'm sorry, 'loopholes') were created for any reason other than to incentivize certain behavior!

quote:
After all, the military's primary mission, when it has a mission at all, is to break things and kill people. This does not boost anybody's economy.
Christ, I know Card knows his history better than to actually believe this. The military doesn't boost anyone's economy? Anyone's?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Europeans will tend to say that they have no problem with individual Americans, but a lot of them, especially in the younger liberal crowd, will proudly talk about how awful the US and always has been. I dated a Greek woman for a while, and one night a her saying she would rather her country be under Putin's influence then America's brought me to ask her to name three positive things either about the US or that the US has done. The most intelligent person I have ever met, and she literally could not do it.

Don't be fooled. I've had plenty of friends and acquantances over the years go on and on about how Americans are this and that, and the other thing. And they don't really know any Americans. And when I point out that the American they *do* know (me), they like, they just sigh knowingly and say: "you're one of the good ones."

Europeans generally think they understand Americans because of our cultural and business hegemony. They understand certain things, but that doesn't mean they know what makes us tick.
 
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
quote:
I know Card knows his history better than to actually believe this. The military doesn't boost anyone's economy? Anyone's?
Putting your condescension aside for a moment, you're completely missing Card's point. The quote is as follows:
quote:
After all, the military's primary mission, when it has a mission at all, is to break things and kill people. This does not boost anybody's economy.
Breaking things and killing people doesn't boost anyone's economy.

A strong military certainly provides an economic boost, which Card argues in the paragraphs following his quote.
 
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
I studied in France 9 years ago, and frankly (pun intended) I didn't experience much anti-Americanism. The most "rude" were the Parisians, but I didn't see any difference between Parisians and New Yorkers, or Chicagoans, or inhabitants of any other big city. Life in a city is much faster-paced, even in a country where the average person spends 4 hours a day eating meals. I was in France during the height of the Iraq War, and even the most hawkish French (an oxymoron, I know) were unsupportive of the U.S. efforts. But none of that translated to dislike of America or Americans in general. The older generations still had strong, positive memories of the American liberation during WWII, and the younger generation thought American culture was "très cool."
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
quote:
I know Card knows his history better than to actually believe this. The military doesn't boost anyone's economy? Anyone's?
Putting your condescension aside for a moment, you're completely missing Card's point. The quote is as follows:
quote:
After all, the military's primary mission, when it has a mission at all, is to break things and kill people. This does not boost anybody's economy.
Breaking things and killing people doesn't boost anyone's economy.

A strong military certainly provides an economic boost, which Card argues in the paragraphs following his quote.

Brian, the criticism about condescension might be better placed if I weren't commenting on an essay that was positively slathered in it.

Anyway, however narrowly you choose to define it there are historically a whole lot of times when killing people and breaking things was, in fact, good for someone's economy. Nor is the American military's only mission to kill people or break things either. For god's sake, that hasn't been true since before the Cold War started. Which Card also knows. But perhaps that gets lost in the aria to the genius of republican presidential military competence. God only knows what America shall do without that Sun Tzu of the modern age, George W. Bush, right?

[ April 18, 2015, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
the military's 'primary mission' (if we're going to be using that, i guess) is usually extension of potential for force as a deterrent against challenges against autonomy of the nation's borders, population, economic interests. it can and often does accomplish this mission without breaking things or killing people much at all, though sometimes this is done with a minimal, almost token extension of force

while we definitely overpay into the general protection program of the west and spend way too much on our military in general (and we're really bad at managing what and how to spend on anyway) you can't deny that the primary benefit we get from a military (that isn't running amok in costs) is, essentially, one that backs our economic force

i mean that he just wrote an article that seems to, you know, not really get any of these things? it goes a long way to explaining the general ignorance of ~military stuff~ that would underpin how one could come to the belief that the bush administration had its shit together in terms of war and the military and were generally competent in the two wars it started
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
though i mean when i actually read the (terrible) article, i guess he maybe gets half of that even if some of the things he is writing actively contradicts the idea he is presenting before? i don't know, his writing has become such churlish crank i sort of end up just glazing through it anyway
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
It drives me crazy that any reduction of funding is seen as meaning out military is doing to be decimated without it.

I don't remember which item it was that congress funded (some new plane maybe?) where top military brass actually came out and aid "the old ones work great, no thansk" (who does that?), and congress *ignored them*.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
i mean i suppose if military funding cuts reduced our active troop count by one tenth, then that technically counts as a decimation
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
A strong military provides some stimulus, a lot of modern innovations came out of military R&D funding and the space race in general is motivated by security concerns.

There's also a lot of specialized jobs that I imagine would be difficult to find in the private sector (a lot of aerospace related jobs for example) and as well the stimulatory effect of having a couple million poor people have jobs.

But otherwise that's if its just standing around brandishing their rifles while saying "Grr!", once they're used in any way then its Broken Window fallacy time.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
So Baltimore blossoms with the seed that Obama has repeatedly sown from the beginning of his administration, when he publicly stated (or showed) his immediate assumption that any white authority figure, acting against any black person in any way, was completely unjustified in his actions.
Not really unexpected, but still depressing. (it only gets worse from there)
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Wow. I'm not sure I remember reading anything by Card that was bluntly racist like that. It's possible I've forgotten. And I suppose not so surprising considering the general arc of frothing Card has done about Obama.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Wow. I'm not sure I remember reading anything by Card that was bluntly racist like that. It's possible I've forgotten. And I suppose not so surprising considering the general arc of frothing Card has done about Obama.

The closest he's come to that level before was his hypothetical scenario where Hitler-Obama recruits "urban youth" or something like that to be part of his New Nazi Party.

I was actually pretty disappointed with this article. I completed expected him to lay the blame of this crisis on Obama and use it as evidence of his incompentence/evil plan to ruin America. I wasn't expecting the racist lecturing that followed. Especially this bit:

quote:
If, whenever the police officer is nonblack and the would-be arrestee is black, the police officer knows that any mistake might lead to him standing trial or going to jail or to massive rioting, it only makes sense for the policeman to shirk his duty, step back and allow the black criminal to go about his criminal activities. Thus life is safer for the policeman – and far, far more dangerous for the black communities in which most black criminals operate.
Yeah, that's totally the problem here. Police aren't arresting enough black criminals.

Also the bits later about how black leaders don't really care about all the other black people being killed by all those black criminals, justifying a "handful" of blacks "accidentially" killed by police being for the black communities own good.

I think it's a new low for him.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
I wish he would come here and have a discussion about some of the things he writes. I wonder how that would go.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
This article makes me feel slightly better.

http://www.rhinotimes.com/weekly-hammer-videos-of-police-have-opened-my-eyes.html
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Wow. I'm not sure I remember reading anything by Card that was bluntly racist like that. It's possible I've forgotten. And I suppose not so surprising considering the general arc of frothing Card has done about Obama.

I hope we haven't already forgotten his thought experiment article detailing how Obama would recruit black thugs into his black supremacy enforcement squads

quote:
The NaPo will be recruited from "young out-of-work urban men" and it will be hailed as a cure for the economic malaise of the inner cities. In other words, Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies.

Instead of doing drive-by shootings in their own neighborhoods, these young thugs will do beatings and murders of people "trying to escape" -- people who all seem to be leaders and members of groups that oppose Obama.

I wanna put this one firmly in the list of ships that have sailed, cause
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
This article makes me feel slightly better.

http://www.rhinotimes.com/weekly-hammer-videos-of-police-have-opened-my-eyes.html

Eh. What does he want, a cookie? He finally found religion about poverty and race being criminalized in Baltimore? How brave of him.

Watch as he continues to promote the same economic and social policies that have led us down this merry path the last 35 years. It's okay though. He gets it.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
honestly, yes, give him a cookie. there is an entire tidal wave of numbskullery you have to dig out of in terms of this whole issue and if he's willing to come out and say, as a conservative, to conservatives, that there is a big ****ing issue

previous to that, his attitude on civil control was the all too common conservative kind that denies any significant racist hardship imposed on blacks by the police. while he's sure to differ in a lot of ways on the subject of coming to a solution to the problem, he's willing to stand up in front of other conservatives and say 'you can't honestly ****ing deny this is happening anymore people, come on'

bit by bit, person by person, why not celebrate chipping this wall down

also he will probably need the cookie because he's about to spend a year or so finding out how completely bugnut his online audience is by blaspheming the narrative, essentially.

that deserves to be dulled with sweets.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
similarly, take this piece:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/15/many-conservatives-blowing-it-ferguson-doj-report/

redstate, a classic mainstay in the realm of these obnoxiously distorted issues, has an author step up and be like "GUYS SERIOUSLY"

with the expected results, apparently
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Yeah, as the editor of a solidly right wing, conservative newspaper (where OSC counts as their token "Democrat"), I genuinely don't think John Hammer has any motives other than honesty and integrity to write that, especially considering the fallout he's going to experience for it. I also think he might get through to his readers and even change minds in a way that few others could.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
honestly, yes, give him a cookie. there is an entire tidal wave of numbskullery you have to dig out of in terms of this whole issue and if he's willing to come out and say, as a conservative, to conservatives, that there is a big ****ing issue

previous to that, his attitude on civil control was the all too common conservative kind that denies any significant racist hardship imposed on blacks by the police. while he's sure to differ in a lot of ways on the subject of coming to a solution to the problem, he's willing to stand up in front of other conservatives and say 'you can't honestly ****ing deny this is happening anymore people, come on'

bit by bit, person by person, why not celebrate chipping this wall down

also he will probably need the cookie because he's about to spend a year or so finding out how completely bugnut his online audience is by blaspheming the narrative, essentially.

that deserves to be dulled with sweets.

^^ Yeah pretty much this.

I don't usually read Rhino Times articles aside from OSC's as I've never done anything beyond pass through NC on the way to somewhere else. My understanding is that this paper leans conservative.

I see a lot of sentiment about how we shouldn't congratulate people in the majority for bragging about their "oh, wait, they weren't lying about being mistreated" moments. Or that intent doesn't matter when people do hurtful things.

The reality is that all of this is a big PR campaign. While the system benefits the majority, it's not like these people are out there committing hate crimes, they're just indifferent and unaffected (until the freeway gets blocked). They are complicit in the sense that only they have the power to change government and haven't yet (if the minority did, this would have been fixed already).


To paraphrase someone who has a really bad handle on these current events, but says smart things from time to time, to get someone to stop doing something, you have to get them to stop wanting to do it.

If we want white people to act better, they need to admit they were wrong, and they (we) don't want to hear it. Some decent people do listen, but most don't because they are human. But if humans in general were good at admitting they were wrong, if they were good at listening to people who were really upset about something, and focusing on what the hurtful thing was and the fact that the person got mad, there would be a lot more people who would still be married.

People listen to their peers. They listen to people they respect, and sadly those voices are the majority. This guy speaks to the people who are likely to be a larger part of the problem, and he's doing it in a way that will get them to listen more than someone blathering on about "systematic injustices".

To present him with a proverbial cookie is to egg him on. To make him want to listen more, to keep telling people who will listen they are wrong, possibly in ways that will get them to sympathize with the victims.

To condescendingly state that he should have figured this out before only serves to show how superior you think are to him.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
similarly, take this piece:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/15/many-conservatives-blowing-it-ferguson-doj-report/

redstate, a classic mainstay in the realm of these obnoxiously distorted issues, has an author step up and be like "GUYS SERIOUSLY"

with the expected results, apparently

There's a world of difference between these two pieces. Wolf very clearly demonstrates the ways in which du jour political imperatives have pushed the conservative movement so far off-balance that it has required them to essentially ignore cold, hard facts, or refuse to present them (in the case of conservative media). That's a lot more meaningful to me than for Hammer to simply admit these facts exist. It's a different level of bravery for Wolf to suggest that the conservative movement is ignoring reality because of an ideological problem, and not merely because reality is somehow difficult to comprehend.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Is there a cookie shortage or something?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
the two pieces are very different, the point of bringing it up as well is that it is another break case where I think cookies are warranted. productive. instructive. mutually beneficial. good policy even in the encouragements of bitter realpolitik or whatever. there's good benefit to just being able to say 'ok, thank you for taking the first few steps on breaking a partisan block in the reason of your ideology' — and that's ok even if it's a bold first few steps, or in the case of the redstate article, a serious quantity of numbered and elucidated steps
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
the two pieces are very different, the point of bringing it up as well is that it is another break case where I think cookies are warranted. productive. instructive. mutually beneficial. good policy even in the encouragements of bitter realpolitik or whatever. there's good benefit to just being able to say 'ok, thank you for taking the first few steps on breaking a partisan block in the reason of your ideology' — and that's ok even if it's a bold first few steps, or in the case of the redstate article, a serious quantity of numbered and elucidated steps

Perhaps. For me though, Hammer's "first few steps," reads as a sort of "non culpa mea culpa." It's *hard* to understand that black people are being oppressed, so it's *understandable* that we don't notice, and so it's not our fault. Now that we noticed, everything is going to be ok, because it isn't our ideology that caused us to be blind to these facts (much less our ideology and actions that has created these circumstances to begin with)- simply that these facts are difficult for us to see and comprehend.

The fact that conservative ideology and social norms require increasingly that people be actively unaware of and hostile to the truth is absent from this revelation. It is a lesson without anything truly being learned. In contrast, Wolf is very aware that he is still applying ridiculously high standards of proof and suspicion upon official sources, subtly mocking the degree to which his readers require him to do so, and *even then* finding ample evidence of a real, serious problem. He not only names the culprit correctly, which is not the difficulty of these facts, or their lack of availability, but in the ideology that refuses to even consider them, and yet fails, even when applied to rigorous degree, to dismiss them outright without violating a degree of 2+2 logic that any sane person would find it impossible to object.

Even Wolf refuses to go so far as to suggest that conservative political ideology has helped create the circumstances ideal for police oppression in small town America, but his implication in pointing out how deeply invested conservatives are in ignoring those circumstances makes his message quite clear. That conservative ideology has become so deeply perverted, that it demands that people *ignore* core principles of conservatism when it comes to small town police forces and whole populations of black people is damning enough.
 
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
 
[Evil Laugh]
 
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
 
Scone recipes, cookies, cake.

Enough thread hijacks for three or four forums.

I think you people might be aliens.

Entertaining though!

Greetings from right-wing utopia, population 1553. Just cruising through. Thought I'd say hi.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
oh hi hoosiertoo
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
The more I read of the struggles of conscience in the hearts of characters who are loyal subjects of the king but who can’t bring themselves to lie about what they believe about religion, the more I couldn’t help making a comparison that Sansom himself never makes (or even implies).

Sansom is too good a novelist to pollute his historical fiction with anachronism, but you would have to be singularly unaware of contemporary politics not to understand that our situation today is directly analogous to the religious situation in Tudor England.

Today, those who fail to bow to the will of the Politically Correct Inquisition are not burned (that’s ISIS’s gig), but you are subjected to the pillory – and forbidden to speak in public, teach at a university (or, really, anywhere) or hold any appointed or elective office. It is not really a matter of belief, but rather of obedience, just as in Tudor times; as long as you obey and do not dispute the right of the Inquisition to rule our national thoughts, you will be left alone.

But heaven help you if you are accused of heresy, for even the accusation is enough to cost you friends, money, job and freedom. I can assure you from personal experience, that this is as true today as in the 1500s – and the accusers have no qualms about lying outrageously in their accusations, while their followers quickly “believe” whatever lies they’re told.

Once they’ve decided to accuse you, you pay for your thought crimes as if you were guilty. End of discussion.

Without delving too deep into this, I'm genuinely interested in

- What outrageous lies have been circulated about OSC? I do remember one person writing an article calling him a Hitler apologist, but the handful of people who mention it at all do so to highlight what a ridiculous accusation it is and dismiss it out of hand.

-How has Mr. Card's freedom been impacted in any way by this "political correctness inquisition"?

-When has he been forbidden to speak in public or teach? Isn't he a part time professor? Didn't he just speak at a Tedx a few months ago?

-The loss of job or money is one I can sort of see considering the boycotting of the movie and the Superman thing. But people choosing not to buy his books is a far cry from an inquisition.

(Also, EG is still one of the best selling Sci-Fi books of all time, and he makes more money in a year off the royalties from book sales alone than I have made in my entire life. He's hardly destitute.)

Basically, is there any reasonable way in which his experience of essentially seeing an (imo understandable) negative reaction from fans to certain things he's said analogous to an inquisition?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I could conceivably see his freedom having been curtailed, if he had received plausible threats of the sort that made some appearances and positions untenable for him. I don't know if that's happened, and would be reprehensible if it had, but that could be what he meant.

As for money, well he's certainly lost money on the basis of his publicly stated political convictions. How much is difficult to say, and he's probably gained some of it back by those same political statements too.

All of that said, though-aside from the freedom bit if that is accurate-it's just more of his self-victimization whining. As for the loss of money, he has supported boycotts against organizations for their political stances. So basically, shut up about that since he's done it himself is the takeaway there. As for friends, that will necessarily be a case by case basis sort of thing, but then it might be tough for some people to be friends with him if they're accused repeatedly of hating America and wishing to destroy it. As for jobs, see: boycotts.

The whining about political office is especially silly: yes, Mr. Card, if you make statements that are flagrantly at odds with popular thinking on important issues, that will serve as an impediment to elected office. Weird.

Anyway, two things are my takeaway on this newest installment of the OSC pity party: unless he has repudiated, in a persuasive way, his past association with boycotting people and organizations for their support of gay marriage, his complaints about risks to job and money are the pathetic hypocrisy. Two, it's not at the level of the Inquisition (or, well, Tudor England, gotta love that historical mashup), though there is plenty of troubling groupthink always going around.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:

-The loss of job or money is one I can sort of see considering the boycotting of the movie and the Superman thing. But people choosing not to buy his books is a far cry from an inquisition.

(Also, EG is still one of the best selling Sci-Fi books of all time, and he makes more money in a year off the royalties from book sales alone than I have made in my entire life. He's hardly destitute.)


I've said this before, but no "boycott" the movie discussions ever have contained explicit details about what Mr. Card's contracts with the studios are. For all we know, he received a very large check for the movie rights and the frequently renewed option as the movie was a decade in the making, and his payment was entirely not dependent on box-office performance or tv movies.

I expect that Card makes money from the Ender's Game movie, simply because having a movie gets people to seek out book and other works of the author.

I do know that some actors do receive money based on movie showings, even after the theater phase.

From Mara Wilson's website:
quote:
I am watching one of your movies! Should I take a picture of the screen or of a video with your face on it and send it to you?

You really don’t have to do that. They’re on cable a lot — which is great news for me, it will pay my ConEd bill that month — and I’m glad you like them, but pictures aren’t necessary.

So Wilson gets tens of dollars from her movies today
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
There is a difference between being "forbidden *to speak in public, teach at a university (or, really, anywhere) or hold any appointed or elective office" and no one wanting to listen to you speak, hire you to teach, or vote for you.

*Italics mine.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
Dogbreath: Is it really so hard to believe that there are elements in the left who demand so much ideological purity that to fail to say exactly the right thing is to incur all sorts of awful invective?

Do you know about all the emails, letters, or comments made to Mr. Card? Do you believe he's lying when he says people have slandered him or lied about him?

Rakeesh:

quote:
As for the loss of money, he has supported boycotts against organizations for their political stances.
I've yet to see any compelling evidence of this claim.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
My memory may be off, but he was on the board of NOM when it was publicly endorsing such boycotts for businesses that supported SSM, wasn't he?

For the record, that would be enough to say that he supported such a stance, BB, if the timeline fits. If he did not, the thing to do would be to either resign and say why, or remain and state disagreement. But did Card ever do either of those things? It's a serious question. If he did not, though-or if he only resigned without making a statement on the subject of boycotts-he gets tarred with that brush, period. If he wants to dissociate himself with a position an organization he leads (or accepts a nominal leadership role as a show of support), he has to, you know, actually repudiate it. He doesn't get to have it taken as a given.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
Rakeesh: He joined NOM many months after they had publicly instigate a boycott against Starbucks, yes. I've retained my citizenship in the United States even after they have admitted to torturing and murdering people without trial. I'm a member of the LDS church which has indicated its intent to try to halt the legalization of same-sex marriage. I would willingly serve in leadership capacities for both.

Requiring people to resign because they belong to organizations that do stupid things is a flimsy standard IMHO. Should everyone at the studio that made the film America resign because a racist idiot conceived it? If you can find somewhere where Mr. Card advocates for boycotting people for having stated certain beliefs, that's all I require. As it stands, I've only ever seen him ask people not to patron businesses because of things they are doing.

As it stands, Mr. Card joined NOM after the boycott, didn't get consulted about NOM board actions, and then quietly resigned later.

Requiring a vocal resignation is just as flimsy IMHO. Plenty of people feel a resignation is a loud statement in of itself, without waxing wordy about it.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
BB,

Ok, a few things. The comparison to citizenship in the United States is a specious argument for at least two reasons: one, its substantially more difficult to 'resign' if one wishes to than it would be to resign from NOM. Though it is exactly as easy to actually *say*, "I disapproved of these boycotts that NOM undertook." Has he done so? Two, though the principle is the same the proportional power is vastly different. Card is one among millions in one, and one board member among far fewer in the other.

Two, Card has gone significantly further than 'simply having a belief'. He has publicly and frequently advocated, politically, for a particular stance which actually impacts the lives of others. People whom support same sex marriage advocate for a stance that...well, look, Card and others will *say* that gay marriage impacts them somehow, but scratch those arguments with a dull fingernail and you start to find bullshit pretty quick.

That said, you're on a bit better ground here. If Card's only activity in this area were to publicly advocate against gay rights (I'm sorry, 'protect marriage'), and he were being boycotted against, that would be one thing, and potentially something I could get behind agreeing with you about.

Which brings us back to: NOM. As for resigning, you'll note I didn't even say that in order to credibly be a victim now, he would have had to make a big showy resignation speech at a press conference. Hell, he wouldn't even have had to resign. But is he on record, anywhere, we having said, "NOM was wrong to have supported boycotts on businesses who supported gay rights?" He may be, but it's news to me.

I'll also note as for showy resignations, the sorts of fawning, groveling displays you're suggesting I was insisting upon are exactly the sort of stances Card now demands from various enemies. The language of show trials is his political stock in trade, now.

A resignation is a significant statement, it's true. It's also ambiguous beyond 'I did not or could not or both work here any longer'. The part where you're insisting it be read as a rejection of the NOM stance on boycotts is simply wishful thinking, BB.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
when you are literally a director of an organization on the literal board of directors, yeah, you have put yourself on a different standard of culpability and considerations for how much you can be said to be in accord with the acts of the organization by default.

he would have to issue some sort of public disavowal of NOM's actions before anyone should seriously protest that point or the point about his boycott hypocrisy. strangely however i am kind of inclined to think he's not interested in disavowing any of that.


 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Dogbreath: Is it really so hard to believe that there are elements in the left who demand so much ideological purity that to fail to say exactly the right thing is to incur all sorts of awful invective?

How does that relate to Card's claim of a "Politically Correct Inquisition" that, if you go against, you are "subjected to the pillory – and forbidden to speak in public, teach at a university (or, really, anywhere) or hold any appointed or elective office." He's not talking about "within elements of the far left." He's clearly stating that he believes this to be fact on the national level - his statements don't make sense otherwise.


quote:
Do you know about all the emails, letters, or comments made to Mr. Card? Do you believe he's lying when he says people have slandered him or lied about him?
Again, you're warping what I actually asked, and what he actually said. He actually said:

"But heaven help you if you are accused of heresy, for even the accusation is enough to cost you friends, money, job and freedom. I can assure you from personal experience, that this is as true today as in the 1500s – and the accusers have no qualms about lying outrageously in their accusations, while their followers quickly “believe” whatever lies they’re told."

And I replied that I'm genuinely curious what sort of outrageous lies have been propagated about him by the "Politically Correct Inquisition." Specifically the sort that have cost him friends, money, job and freedom. I have no doubt people have told lies about him - I even mentioned one that I've encountered (the Hitler apologist one) - but from what I've seen almost all of the actual backlash he's encountered has been in reaction to actual things he has said about gay marriage and homosexuality. Thus my question, and I would actually be very happy if you could answer it, what lies exactly is he referring to here? Who are the accusers and who are the followers "quickly "believing" the lies they've been told"? Because he genuinely seems to think most of the negative reactions he's seen has been caused by people believing these "outrageous lies" rather than, you know, reading what he actually wrote and strongly disagreeing with it, and I really want to know what those outrageous lies are.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Well, one need only look at the evidence in Card's own experience. After all, since he has advocated the violent overthrow of the government, along with the retention of laws against sodomy, and called the left the "leftaliban," and populated scenarios in which Obama will soon employ urban youth gangs as a modern incarnation of the Hitler's storm troopers... And rather a lot else of equally hilarious provenance, things have gone badly for him indeed.

His bestselling books has fallen off the shelves of major bookstores. Hollywood refused to produce a movie based on his work, and refused to offer him a cameo in said movie. He has been fired from his job teaching at a university, and his work has been banned from official reading lists, including those of the military and Tor has refused to continue publishing his books... Oh no, nothing of this has happened.

Apparently what has happened is that he's received some impolite mail, and been castigated for his medieval views on gay rights.

Thanks Obama.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:

" if you could answer it, what lies exactly is he referring to here? Who are the accusers and who are the followers "quickly "believing" the lies they've been told"? Because he genuinely seems to think most of the negative reactions he's seen has been caused by people believing these "outrageous lies" rather than, you know, reading what he actually wrote and strongly disagreeing with it, and I really want to know what those outrageous lies are.

Just a guess? A very old, very dead embarrassment regarding a paper that got written many years ago about Ender's game being an apologia for Hitler, and a related hit piece on Card's personal character for his handling of that situation. I think there may have actually been 2 papers- I haven't read both.

If you had to nail down Card's personal Waterloo, or maybe Stalingrad (forgive that analogy), that might well be the one.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
BB,
quote:
As it stands, Mr. Card joined NOM after the boycott
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but, that's incredibly obviously not true and you know (well, at least knew) that it is not true.

OSC joined NOM's board in 2009 and resigned in 2013. The Starbucks boycott was started in 2012. The idea that he joined after is just something you made up. It is easily checkable and actually addressed, specifically to you, on this very thread. In response, you said this:
quote:
The boycott was instituted in March 2012, Mr. Card joined NOM in 2009. So you are correct, it was late last night so I didn't try looking this stuff up.
Soooo....what's up with that?

[ June 18, 2015, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
MrSquicky: You'll have to accept my apologies. It's embarrassing but I misremembered something I very clearly researched in the past.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:

His bestselling books has fallen off the shelves of major bookstores. Hollywood refused to produce a movie based on his work, and refused to offer him a cameo in said movie. He has been fired from his job teaching at a university, and his work has been banned from official reading lists, including those of the military and Tor has refused to continue publishing his books... Oh no, nothing of this has happened.


Totally unrelated: where was OSC's cameo?
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
They snuck him in there as one Ender's soldiers in the Battleroom during the fight with Salamander.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
[Razz]

He was offered a cameo but turned it down.

http://blog.endernews.com/2012/11/orson-scott-card-talks-enders-game-movie.html
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
You think he could've been one of the I.F Admirals at the end.

e: Also rationalwiki has a thing where they just sorta speculate that the "Buggers" was meant to be a thinly veiled means of disparaging gays but I don't buy that as it's a British slur that mostly used as we use the word "damn" and very directly relates to the Formics being insectoids, so yeah.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
You think he could've been one of the I.F Admirals at the end.

e: Also rationalwiki has a thing where they just sorta speculate that the "Buggers" was meant to be a thinly veiled means of disparaging gays but I don't buy that as it's a British slur that mostly used as we use the word "damn" and very directly relates to the Formics being insectoids, so yeah.

I don't buy it as means of disparaging the gays either. Buggers='cuz they look like bugs. I've yet to hear someone be genuinely offended by the name (Maybe I'm not listening to the right people? Or they have bigger things that bothered them). Politically speaking, it was changed long before people started sharpening the pitchforks against homophobes en masse and before gay marriage was legal. I got the impression that someone told OSC about the third meaning of the word, and he got really embarrassed and came up with the formic concept.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
'buggers' is probably just unfortunate coincidence. it's not like it's supposed to be pc in the story itself nor ultimately are they bad after all
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
[Razz]

He was offered a cameo but turned it down.

http://blog.endernews.com/2012/11/orson-scott-card-talks-enders-game-movie.html

No, he voiced the pilot who takes Graff and Ender to ISL. he wrote a post about it in his blog to the cloud.
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Him and others like him think they can blame gays for ruining society, call them children playing dress up in their parent's clothes (which is actually in an essay of his) and deny them rights and that gay people should just nod in agreement and get back into the closet.
[Wall Bash] [Wall Bash]
This isn't going to happen. People are going to fight back using some of the same tactics used by OSC and their ilk. Boycotts and such. General disagreeing. Going, uh, I'm not sure you have an accurate representation of what it means to be gay and here's why. Allow me to recommend several books.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
This last article still is .... Uh, awful. But I can't think of an interesting way to address or approach or explain it
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
This last article still is .... Uh, awful. But I can't think of an interesting way to address or approach or explain it

Are you talking about the English period pieces & British/American acting philosophies?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think it's more likely that he's talking about how you don't see affirmative action policies on American Ninja Warrior, and as a consequence Republicans should be able to engage in voter suppression tactics.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
This last article still is .... Uh, awful. But I can't think of an interesting way to address or approach or explain it

Are you talking about the English period pieces & British/American acting philosophies?
That might be interesting to read.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think it's more likely that he's talking about how you don't see affirmative action policies on American Ninja Warrior, and as a consequence Republicans should be able to engage in voter suppression tactics.

I read this one and it is heartless, privileged ranting combined with a deep misunderstanding of justice, democracy, and how affirmative action works.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
i just like how and why anyone at all pretends in any way shape or form that the goal of these voter ID laws is anything but that republicans are trying to keep people who don't generally vote republican from voting, or from having their votes count as much as republican votes, using any means they can get.

or as i said before, the purpose of these voter id laws has never ever ever been to prevent voter fraud, and i am sincerely impressed when people can't figure that out and make arguments predicated on essentially ignoring that the point of these laws is to try to prevent as many poor and minority populations from voting because they would vote against the people who institute these laws in order to keep election turnouts favorable to them

and it is extra special to just witness the extent of, say, orson scott card doubling down on a pretty transparent scheme to unrepresentationally bolster conservative candidates. we start to wonder 'so when would he hypothetically break on that one, where's the point at which he wises up and admits that he's wrong'

but in the same article he's still doubling down on the liberal global warming misinformation conspiracy so yeah
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
We all show positive ID to get on an airplane, rent a car, cash a check, buy alcohol or cigarets, visit a sick person in a hospital, or prove to the cop who stopped us that we're entitled to drive at all, and to drive this car in particular. It is not an unreasonable burden to level the playing field by requiring that voters meet the same standard.
It's horrifying in its own special way to see a person's soul being carved out and replaced by walnut maple ice cream bought at harris-teeters (or whatever high-end luxury OSC is flogging this week).

That there are American citizens who don't fly in airplanes, rent cars, cash checks, or drive must be unthinkable to this affluent white man. And of course, I haven't been carded since I was 25 (and OSC surely hasn't been carded in 30 years), and I have never had my ID checked at a hospital.

The basis of democracy is not to judge burdens and tests for voting according to what is reasonable (read: acceptable) for the average citizen, but that is absolutely necessary for all citizens. All available research shows that in-person voter fraud is simply not an issue. It does not, effectively, happen, and it has no effect on the outcome of any election in the United States, and hasn't for many, many years.

OSC simply doesn't believe in the universal franchise. He believes in the franchise for voters who pass the economic and social tests of his choosing.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
We know this man has an amazing imagination. He has written wonderful stories about what the universe looks like from other points of view. Even alien points of view. How is it possible that he can't stretch his mind far enough to imagine what it is like to be urban and poor?
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I don't think he realizes that the Unconstitutionality of Poll Taxes was settled a long time ago.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
No, he does, he just doesn't want poor people to vote. I don't even know that it's a racist thing. So much of OSC's identity has become entangled with consumerism and wealth, that I think he hates poor people. Doesn't want to understand them, and wishes that they could be easily disenfranchised. He is not alone.

You know kmboots, I am married to a Ukrainian. This is relevant, and I'll explain why.

My wife's sister sometimes visits us. She is 24, lives and works in Ukraine, and so by the standards of almost any western country, she is very poor, particularly when she leaves the country (their money doesn't go very far).

In Ukraine, and she lives in Kiev which is a richer part of the country, people are adapted to a different sort of life. In Prague, it's typical for somebody who works as a janitor or a server to be able to go out to pubs and such. So there are cafes and theaters, and restaurants, and everything else in quite a high density. People have money to spend on that stuff. In Kiev, one of the things that really shocked me when I visited was that there is *nothing to do* except for in very specific, very concentrated areas. Millions of people though live in areas where the activities that you can do in public involve going to a large grocery store, or sitting on a bench. No small shops. No cafes. No pubs. No ways to spend money people don't have to spend.

So the grocery store is HUGE and FULL of people (to a ridiculous degree), but there is no overflow to any other type of business. Nobody can afford anything that has too much value added. No premium services of any kind can be sustained.

So anyway, when my sister in law visits us, I find myself getting frustrated with her at times. She seems irresponsible to me.

For example, she will go to the other side of town with no ID, no credit cards (she doesn't have any), and no cash, and then get stuck because she can't afford to get home. She'll call my wife and my wife will figure out how to help her. Recently, she got stuck in Bratislava on her way back home, because she didn't have enough cash to pay for the bus once she'd taken a tram to get to the bus station.

She will show up in-country with an equivalent of $20 that has to last up to a week, and she will innevitably use it before she leaves, and need more- but she has no atm card, or bank account, and so her mother will have to wire her cash (which costs a lot) or I will have to sponsor her, which annoys me, but which I expect.

I recall similar frustrations with my wife when she had only been living here for a short time, and I was not supporting her financially. She would do these things that just seemed so irresponsible to me- like taking a train to another town with exactly enough money to pay for a train back. If she needed anything in the meantime, she was in trouble. She sometimes scared me with this behavior, and occasionally she still surprises me by doing things like that.

For example, I remember vividly walking with my wife to the transport office and paying for a yearly transport pass, because she had refused to pay the $200 or so that it costs, when a monthly pass costs "only" $30. She could not, would not listen to my logic when I explained that she would end up paying about 160% of the $200 if she bought a pass every month. My wife isn't stupid. But to her, saving $170 today is worth losing another $160 over the next year. What could I say to that?

But I realized that her sister, and her, years ago, are used to this. This is their normal. The normal is having exactly the amount you need in your pocket (or less), and just dealing with what happens as it happens.

If you don't have enough money to even consider making the right decisions, then logic is really not something you need to engage with in the same way as people who do. In fact, it would only be depressing if you had to think about it in terms of how hard you're being screwed by your own poverty. This is really why poor people vote in such low numbers in the first place. So adding another barrier to that- and assigning it the same importance as all the other rich-people activities that are involved with having an ID, like driving a car, flying in a plane, or renting something, is just icing. It's just one more reason not to bother.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I think in a lot of cases it's not just a matter of not bothering, it's a matter of literally lacking the time, money or incentive to do so. Having seen my wife go through a similar process recently which ended up taking 8 months to complete, I can tell you getting a photo ID is hardly the trivial matter OSC makes it out to be - certainly less so if you're poor. (which goes towards explaining why 11% of American adults - and 25% of African American adults - don't have photo IDs)

Quite simply, it's prohibitively expensive and time consuming if you're living paycheck to paycheck. You need a certified birth certificate (and I live in a state which requires it to be certified within 30 days of the application, which is an additional $50 plus $30 shipping fee if you're out of state), a social security card (which requires you to have a birth certificate, and also have some form of photo identification which can be very difficult to have if you're trying to get it so you can get a photo ID in the first place), proof of residence, and then have to file an application for a photo ID. I know in a lot of states it's actually a more difficult and expensive process to get just a photo ID than it is to get a drivers license - IIRC ours requires a petition with the Lt. Governors office, which can take several months. And of course it costs more money too.

What it ends up being is several hundred dollars, plus a mountain of paperwork, plus several trips to offices that are only open Monday-Friday 8-3:30... and you're working an hourly job that doesn't let you take off in the middle of the day to "run errands", and the offices are 15 miles away, how are you going to get there? more money. Then several months of waiting to finally get an ID that you'll have to renew every 5 years, and is entirely useless to you in any practical way except to exercise your right to vote. (and I'm not getting into asinine payment issues, like some of those offices only accepting checks, which means you have to have a bank account... etc. etc.)

Whereas if you're born into privilege, this process is almost entirely transparent to you. Your parents have obtained and maintained the necessary documents since you were born. You get a passport as a kid (to go on an airplane), or get a drivers license at 16, and from that point on, it's just a matter of renewing that photo ID every 5 or 10 years using the photo IDs you already have. So when OSC says something as outrageously disingenuous like:

quote:
You don't have to be smart to have government-issued ID. You just have to take the time to get that ID -- which means you have to have planned ahead just the tiniest bit.
Well yes, that's true. If you're rich and already have one.

But if you're poor, it's a labyrinthine process that's even worse than a poll tax - and arguably comparable to polling tests - at disenfranchising poor people. (and quite disproportionately, poor black people)

That - coupled with the fact that these voter ID laws are always designed to take effect right before major elections - makes this a pretty blatant attempt at widespread and systematic voter suppression on the part of the Republican party. And I don't really believe that Mr. Card is ignorant or unimaginative enough not to realize that that is what's happening, I just don't think he cares.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Has anyone ever seen him reply to a comment on his article? I'd be interested in seeing Dogbreath post that on the article to see if he would reply.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Has anyone ever seen him reply to a comment on his article? I'd be interested in seeing Dogbreath post that on the article to see if he would reply.

You mean on the Rhino Times site? No, I've personally never seen that happen.

But he's the owner of this site, so presumably he still browses the forums here. I don't know if he spends his time reading this thread, but I always write under the assumption that he will read what I say.

I would honestly love it if he decided to engage in a discussion about his articles here. I can understand why he doesn't - I think it would end up being more or less a dogpile considering the contrast between his political beliefs and those of most of the posters here - but it would be nice to help clear up some of the factual issues if nothing else. (like how much of an input he had in NOM's boycotts and why he chose to resign)
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
But he's the owner of this site, so presumably he still browses the forums here.
I wouldn't make that assumption, necessarily. I know Kristine does, but even then she generally notices things only when BB brings them to her attention.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
In some states, the use of voter ID laws as a poll tax/time barrier to keep liberal demographics (poor, nonwhite, young, etc) from voting is astoundingly transparent in that it is clearly engaged upon as a conservative strategy to keep poor people from voting, especially in areas concentrated with demographics that vote against conservatives. In other states, it is merely just largely transparent that it is a conservative strategy to keep poor people from voting.

In Wisconsin, shortly after passing a voter ID law, Scott Walker shuttered well over one in ten DMV's in the entire state, mostly in areas that were largely democratic, it is told. Other DMV's had their hours expanded.

Conservatives have to assert that this is incidental.

Florida, a state that had largely performed averagely in poll wait times in the past, had its average wait time soar to a 45 minute average in the election directly following a conservative push for voter ID blocks, largely because of catastrophic overload in ... yes, you guessed it: urban centers. Apparently, the republican legislature had also seen it fit to cut early voting times drastically and was not particularly inclined to expand polling capacity.

Conservatives have to assert that this is incidental.

The list of acceptable forms of identification proposed for use in getting a voter ID has often been observed to be oddly skewed in favor of some types of ID, such as a concealed carry license being valid in ways a tribal identification card is not, despite this being profoundly dumb. In some places this was largely shored up by complaints, followed by legal cases against the states in question.

Conservatives have to assert that this is incidental.

There is no scourge of voter fraud — the maximum calculated impact across the country is infinitesimal. Something like maybe 40 confirmed cases since 2000. It is a nonissue. No elections are at risk from voter fraud. The voter ID laws are supposed to prevent voter impersonation, but mail in ballot fraud is responsible for about four times the total amount of (again, infinitesimal) voter fraud. But since mail in ballots are largely mailed in by older white people, you find that these voter ID law pushes will, more often than not, really not touch the issue of mail in ballot security much, or at all.

Conservatives have to assert that this is incidental.

A grand total of five states got voter ID laws passed by conservatives who were reacting immediately to the supreme court gutting a part of the voting rights act, a law passed explicitly to prevent intentional barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote. These states' conservatives had been unable to enact their voter ID laws since their states had a legacy of intentional disenfranchisement of African Americans. The ruling against the voting rights act had put their states under extra scrutiny, given their history of intentional disenfranchisement, that prevented them from passing laws that would disenfranchise voters. Once they were freed from this extra scrutiny, they immediately passed laws that disenfranchised voters. Texas didn't even wait more than two hours to get started.

Conservatives are usually just shrugging at this point, or saying that agenda-packing liberals are just trying to make them look bad in a somehow illegitimate way.

Texas would, of course, succeed in rushing its new voter ID, with the state AG announcing its immediate implementation. The exact same AG, Abbott, was simultaneously planning to put in place redistricting maps conservatives drew up in 2011. These redistricting maps had previously been blocked according to a court ruling that showed that the maps were "a deliberate, race-conscious method to manipulate not simply the Democratic vote but, more specifically, the Hispanic vote."

Conservatives have to assert that something something mumble mumble it's the liberals who are the real election riggers mumble.

Every single voter ID law has been sponsored by republicans and passed purely by republican representatives. They are a purely conservative effort that have constantly and consistently shown the habit of being intended to prevent specific demographics from voting, because these demographics vote liberal. Courts have certainly observed the habit in practice. Laws have been struck down very clearly. Pennsylvania conservatives' attempt was revoked by the courts because it obviously discriminated against low-income and minority voters. A Commonwealth court judge, McGinley, declared that the entire law was absolutely violative of the constitutional rights of state voters — by preponderance of evidence, it was declared, it was there to place undue burden on hundreds of thousands of already registered voters due to a lack of infrastructure and state support for obtaining required IDs.

Conservatives something something no you.

Another circuit judge, Richard Posner, himself actually a conservative, provided a serious critique of the laws, calling the expressed concern about voter fraud an obvious ruse for laws he saw "appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks." The movement to expand voter ID laws as much as conservatives could get away with was spurred by the understanding that, at present, Republican gerrymandering was going to become eventually insufficient a method of keeping disproportional representation in favor of Republican candidates, and something new was needed to hold off the tide.

Conservatives in the states that can get away with this shit just shrug and go "yeah, but you can't stop us, because we won't let you." Then they saunter off confident in the fact that, at least for now, the strategy has been providing the intended effect for them.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
I can understand why he doesn't - I think it would end up being more or less a dogpile considering the contrast between his political beliefs and those of most of the posters here
I don't think enough people hang around here to have a dogpile. My guess is it would primarily be you, Orincoro, and Rakeesh engaging him with Samp jumping in with somewhat trollish yet insightful commentary. [Wink]
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
But since mail in ballots are largely mailed in by older white people, you find that these voter ID law pushes will, more often than not, really not touch the issue of mail in ballot security much, or at all.

Military, too. I haven't voted in person since 2008. I finally just registered to vote here in Hawaii (since I technically don't think it's legal for me to vote in Indiana any more (not that anyone would stop me)) and I'm kind of looking forward to actually being able to vote on election day again.

quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I don't think enough people hang around here to have a dogpile. My guess is it would primarily be you, Orincoro, and Rakeesh engaging him with Samp jumping in with somewhat trollish yet insightful commentary. [Wink]

I am greatly amused that the guy with nearly 10 times as many posts as me is somehow relegated to being the wacky sidekick of this scenario. Take that, Mr. Rimary!
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
tertiaryadjunct stands in line for a ballot in a polling place, 2012.

Guy at front of line: "So, uh, my wallet got lost or stolen yesterday. I don't have my ID. Is there any way I can still get a ballot?"

Gummint employee: "That's not an issue sir, California doesn't have a voter ID law. Just sign next to your name and you're good to go."

Guy: "Oh, great. But they really should do something to fix that. Anyone could say they're me!"

tertiaryadjunct: [Wall Bash]

/true (paraphrased) story, bro
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
The internet should require ID. Anyone can claim they're you. It's a crime, and they could go to prison for a year or more, but they can still do it.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Inside Out (Spoilers)

quote:
In fact, one of the huge holes in this mental construct is one that every parent recognizes as we watch it form in our children: morality. What does the child internalize as right and wrong, so that they act according to that moral code whether they expect to be caught or not?

You know – the thing that keeps them from playing with knives or matches, or running into the street or hitting their siblings, even when parents aren’t watching. The skills that enable them to get along well in a civilized society.

The children who don’t develop some version of this are what we call “sociopaths” – but most children do. In fact, with our kids the rule-forming function was so strong that we sometimes had to spend more time telling them that something wasn’t a matter of right vs. wrong, and they were free to choose.

This isn't a problem with the movie, I think OSC doesn't get where morals come from.

Morality is not an emotion. It's a value/thing Riley cares about. Hence "Honesty island". Along with Family, Friendship, Goofball and Hockey.

Fear is what keeps kids from playing with knives (and it's shown in the movie show fear takes the driver's seat for toddler Riley). Fear of hurting others or society because people have a "Family island" or a "friendship island". If the person is religious, "God" might be on the list of people to fear hurting, but society and family are totally sufficient.

I imagine if rule-following is internalized very strongly, one might have a "Law" island. There would be core memories of being rewarded when law is upheld, and being hurt when it wasn't that power the island.

One of the most powerful things that a parent can say to hurt a child is "I'm very disappointed in you".

Fear is what sociopaths do not have. I've read a few of the pop books on the subject (the Sociopath Next Door, and the Psychopath test), and one of them mentions an (unethical) experiment done on prisoners which pretty conclusively shows who's a psychopath. Take a prisoner, strap him down, and put stuff on him to measure his vitals. Now count back to 10 and shock him when zero is reached. Now do it again. For non-psychopaths, the vitals go CRAZY as you get closer to zero. The body fears, and anticipates the shock. For psychopaths, nothing. Both groups are in pain and suffer from the electric shock, but only one group fears it the second time.

So in the Inside Out metaphor, a psychopath would literally not have the purple fear guy in the brain. And it's likely that there's no island for other people only interests.

The entire movie offers an explanation for people breaking with the fabric of society: emotional upheaval causes a loss of connection from core memories to core values, and that joy is no longer in the driver's seat. People with bad childhoods might never have had those core memories to form those islands to begin with.

The loss of joy (and even the inability to feel sadness) also a great metaphor for depression, as you go through life not feeling things, and the connections to things you care about no longer work.


quote:
(Don’t bother looking for ambition, aggression, competitiveness, introversion, trust, show-offery, vanity, self-hatred, or ... you know, the whole range of motivations and emotions.)
But they're there. Joy, Anger/Fear, Joy, Fear, Joy, Joy, Disgust, Disgust.

It's not an accident Disgust was the most fashionably dressed of the emotions, and was also responsible for Riley fitting in and wanting to be "cool" in addition to not liking broccoli. To be cool, there's a manifestation of "not cool", and a desire for that not to be you, that isn't necessarily fear based, but rather based on disgust.

And, as the movie's moral shows, things can have more than one emotion, but if you break it down, these things are motivated from the five simple ones. Could there be a sixth emotion? Possibly. But none of the things OSC listed are a compelling case for number six.

quote:

Now, it’s true that emotions often pop up for reasons of their own, and we invent causes for them after the fact. But even within this story, they don’t actually cause Riley’s decisions, though they influence them.

Whatever it is in Riley that decides what she’s going to do is never dealt with. We only know that when things get discombobulated, and both Joy and Sadness are accidentally sucked out of the control room and lost in the recesses of memory, Riley gets a deadpan expression and rejects any kind of communication with her parents.

Then Anger (for some reason) picks up a screw-in lightbulb that represents “running away,” and that’s when Riley makes up her mind to go back to Minnesota.

Why Anger? Isn’t running away a fear response (as in “fight or flight”)? It made no sense, but what the heck. The kid is smart, and she’s apparently in the safest part of the city, so she can walk to the bus station without problems, and they accept the credit card and let an unaccompanied child on the bus without any question. Maybe that’s a thing that can really happen.

What were the emotions doing at the console then, if not driving Riley? The lightbulb was pulled out of a collection of "ideas" and literally put in there by anger. Anger wanted her to go to Minnesota. The emotions don't have complete control, but yes, they do drive Riley

There's a very good reason why anger, not fear is driving Riley. Riley isn't afraid of her classmates beating her up, and she's already screwed up being called on, so no need to fear that one. She's mad because what she had was taken away from her and she has no control over her own life.

Cities ... are not that dangerous to walk around in. Remember that part where crime is at an all-time global low. Granted, I was an adult, but I have ample experience walking around late at night, and I've never had to dodge a single person in the bushes. Did someone take a credit card? I don't remember, and assume Riley bought her bus ticket on the internet, and the boarding pass probably got sent to her phone. Age 11 bleeds into middle school age. It's quite easy to assume that Riley belonged to the person in front or behind her


quote:

You get the idea. Each new religion within the overarching priesthood of psychology comes in with a roar – the new male baboon entering the troop – disrupting everything and struggling to reach the top of the heap. But if there’s anything of value it’s almost an accident, and as for what is true about the human mind ... well, the actual, verifiable science is creeping along, so we know more than we used to. But the science always lags many leagues behind the claims of the newly converted enthusiasts.

Oof. I wonder how much OSC has been listening to Scientologists these days.

On a side note, did anyone else notice that the mother had sadness in the driver's center seat?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I don't think enough people hang around here to have a dogpile. My guess is it would primarily be you, Orincoro, and Rakeesh engaging him with Samp jumping in with somewhat trollish yet insightful commentary. [Wink]

I am greatly amused that the guy with nearly 10 times as many posts as me is somehow relegated to being the wacky sidekick of this scenario. Take that, Mr. Rimary!
apparently my primary contribution is my own patented blend of Edutrolling™
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
On the Martian
quote:
In fact, this movie will be practically a remake of Gravity, only this time with plausible science and intelligent writing.

quote:
So when Gravity came along, it marked an attempt to follow the pattern of competent-man sci-fi. Even though the science was bad to the point of weeping,
Gravity was not that bad. Really.

quote:
Let me point to a couple of very good movies. In Deep Impact, the sacrifice of the astronauts breaks up the asteroid enough that when it collides with Earth, it doesn’t end all life. There are people around to pick up the pieces.
However, when real planetary scientists are looking for a Hollywood movie to watch drunk and giggle at the bad science, they turn to ... Deep Impact (or The Core if they are feeling really masochistic).
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I'm wondering if Card will, in his now usual Obama fixation and vitriol along with his GOP apologism, take a swing at Trump's remarks on Mexicans and try to tell us how it's the fault of gays or Obama or gay Obamas.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'd be surprised. Trump isn't Card's type.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I would say that Trump isn't *anybody's* type, except that he's now the most popular Republican candidate in the race, so clearly quite a few people like him. I genuinely don't understand why. (and I can understand why people like guys like Huckabee, Perry, or even Cruz)

I imagine Card will ignore him during the primaries and, if he wins and it comes down to Clinton or Sanders or whoever vs. Trump, he'll start supporting him and brush off the anti-immigrant remarks as a "gee, funny how the librul media keeps bringing that up...." type rant.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
he's now the most popular Republican candidate in the race
Wait, what
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
He voted for Obama both times didn't he?
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
I would say that Trump isn't *anybody's* type, except that he's now the most popular Republican candidate in the race, so clearly quite a few people like him. I genuinely don't understand why. (and I can understand why people like guys like Huckabee, Perry, or even Cruz)

I imagine Card will ignore him during the primaries and, if he wins and it comes down to Clinton or Sanders or whoever vs. Trump, he'll start supporting him and brush off the anti-immigrant remarks as a "gee, funny how the librul media keeps bringing that up...." type rant.

Well, four years ago, my mom made an offhand remark about Trump being a good president because he was a good business man, etc. etc. With his TV persona, I think most people don't know that Trump isn't that great at business. I suspect that's the case with most people.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
I don't know much about Trump past his branding, pop culture status, and his boneheaded political comments. Why do you say that he's not that great at business?
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
He's really good at using bankruptcy laws to his advantage.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
he's now the most popular Republican candidate in the race
Wait, what
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/11718563/Republicans-cast-into-turmoil-as-Donald-Trump-rides-the-populist-surge.html

quote:
Mr Trump was touting his first place in an average of 105 polls. Of the 14 candidates who have declared, Trump topped the field with 13.6 per cent support to 13.3 per cent for Jeb Bush
If he keeps making racist and xenophobic speeches he'll win the Republican primary in a landslide. They love him.

Elison: Who/what are you talking about?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I don't know much about Trump past his branding, pop culture status, and his boneheaded political comments. Why do you say that he's not that great at business?

Trump is a cautionary tale. If what he does works, there's something wrong with how you can practice capitalism in your society, and you need to have as few of him happening in your markets as you can possibly manage, because he's poison with a net negative effect. If enough people practiced "successful capitalism" the way Trump has made it work for him, the economy would implode under debt-manipulated fleecing.

He's 'great at business' in the same way that a confessions-of-an-economic-hitman style vulture capitalist is 'great,' based solely on the post-hoc rationalization that they got away with it and are very rich now, even if their methods resulted in a net loss of people's livelihoods and screwed other people over really super hard.

If bankruptcy law hadn't been as excruciatingly oligarch-friendly, he would have been a footnote — a narcissistic comedy routine who inherited his father's business empire, then plunged himself into billions of dollars of debt and had to call it quits. Instead, he just made sure he had enough clever accounting to leave other people footing the bill no matter how spectacularly he failed.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I'm wondering if Card will, in his now usual Obama fixation and vitriol along with his GOP apologism, take a swing at Trump's remarks on Mexicans and try to tell us how it's the fault of gays or Obama or gay Obamas.

Card has never been a hard-liner on immigration. It's just not compatible with his religious views, I think.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
he's now the most popular Republican candidate in the race
Wait, what
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/11718563/Republicans-cast-into-turmoil-as-Donald-Trump-rides-the-populist-surge.html

quote:
Mr Trump was touting his first place in an average of 105 polls. Of the 14 candidates who have declared, Trump topped the field with 13.6 per cent support to 13.3 per cent for Jeb Bush
If he keeps making racist and xenophobic speeches he'll win the Republican primary in a landslide. They love him.

Elison: Who/what are you talking about?

Card.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
That would be some plot twist.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
UGH
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
UGH WHAT A GENERALLY REASONABLE AND COMPASSIONATE ARTICLE UGH I'M SO MAD
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I know, right?
 
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
 
I'm really buying into the whole Trump running a false flag campaign thing.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Yeah, I finished the article thinking, "Man, every so often OSC writes an article where I remember why I read these every week for the last 10 years".

I had some quibbles:

Less than half of Ashley Madison's users were inside the United States, so that skews up a little bit of the math.

While I agree entirely that people on that site created their own problems, there are also some more forgivable reasons for being on it.

1. I read something on Reddit about a gay man from Saudi Arabia who could very well be executed since his name is public, and he's trying to seek asylum (I don't expect OSC to be sympathetic to that one).

2. Swingers and people who have joined who are in open marriages, but would like to keep their privacy.

As for social security, I thought it was entirely paid for by the current population, so while not taking it helps other current boomers, it doesn't do anything for the problems that might arise in 30 years or so.

Also, the rate you get paid is fixed on the year you start taking it, so if you start at 62, you get less per month than if you start at 70. If you live long enough, you make up for starting later.

Publicly vowing to refuse it entirely, seems silly,
 
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
As for social security, I thought it was entirely paid for by the current population, so while not taking it helps other current boomers, it doesn't do anything for the problems that might arise in 30 years or so.

Not exactly. There are just too many boomers to make it possible for the current generation to support them. But by some freak miracle of political foresight, we saw this coming in the 80's and made sure to start collecting a bit MORE than immediately necessary. The excess is stored in a trust fund* which can be tapped to cover deficits when there are more retirees than can be supported by the younger generation (expected to happen in 2022). At the rate things are going, the trust fund is projected to be tapped out in 2033, at which point benefits will have to be reduced or taxes increased.

* IIRC the trust fund puts the money (over $2 trillion now) in the safest investment possible: US Treasury bonds. This leads to some idiots saying "the government just loans the money to itself and then spends it! It doesn't really exist anymore and we are screwed!!" When in fact the bonds will be reliably paid back just like all are.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
"at which point benefits will have to be reduced or taxes increased."

Or the government just issues the money anyway. Which I am mostly persuaded is a fine option. See modern monetary theory.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
It's fine in the sense that it is not substantially different from what the government already does, which is issue bonds which it then buys from itself.

It's only bad in the sense that if the markets somehow feel that the government is giving itself too much money, and relying too much on inflation to cover the long term costs of financing its debt to itself, then the markets can also decide those bonds are worthless. Ultimately the bond market still has to be a market, or it doesn't work out in the end.

Which is why, to back up the issuance of new bonds during a financial boom, you have to raise taxes. This gives government debt more legitimacy- it is assurance that the debt will be paid back.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Also the entire current world order is structured around the supremacy of the US dollar and the invulnerability of the US economy. I don't think there's honestly a point where the bonds would lose their value short of the US no longer being hegemon.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Heh. Where were you in 2010? The bonds "losing their value," is an armageddon scenario. US bonds losing a scintilla of credibility results in financial chaos on a global scale.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Yeah that's why the GOP threatening to default the US is borderline treason because it'll do more damage to the US's global position than any Iran deal.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Heh. Where were you in 2010? The bonds "losing their value," is an armageddon scenario. US bonds losing a scintilla of credibility results in financial chaos on a global scale.

Can you elaborate on that? When you say "losing their value is an armageddon scenario", don't bonds lose their value all the time when rates go up, or do you mean specifically U.S. bonds losing their risk-free status?
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Heh. Where were you in 2010? The bonds "losing their value," is an armageddon scenario. US bonds losing a scintilla of credibility results in financial chaos on a global scale.

Can you elaborate on that? When you say "losing their value is an armageddon scenario", don't bonds lose their value all the time when rates go up, or do you mean specifically U.S. bonds losing their risk-free status?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Heh. Where were you in 2010? The bonds "losing their value," is an armageddon scenario. US bonds losing a scintilla of credibility results in financial chaos on a global scale.

Can you elaborate on that? When you say "losing their value is an armageddon scenario", don't bonds lose their value all the time when rates go up, or do you mean specifically U.S. bonds losing their risk-free status?
Bonds don't lose face value- they just can't be bought at the same rate. Bond value pretty much always goes up. If they go down, the conerstone of international finance goes with them.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
And that happened in 2010? Are you referring to the U.S. credit-rating down grade
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
Wherein Noblehunter pretends he understand money:

The credit rating downgrade was an implication that it had become less likely the US would be able to pay off its debts. I don't think the market put much credibility in that particular judgement.

If I understand things right, the only time bonds would trade at less than their face value (ie. the debt holder losing money on the deal) would be if a potential default were imminent. Sellers would be hedging their risk against getting paid back less than they lent (sell for 90% of the face value to avoid the risk of getting 0%) whereas buyers would be trying to get bonds for less than what will eventually be paid (buying for 90% of the face and getting paid 95% from the original borrower). I would expect bonds are normally traded at above face value, starting at the value at maturity agreed to by the borrower and trending towards 100% as people cash out or hedge against risk.

At one point (2008 or 2010), the rest of the system was so screwy that people were buying US bonds close enough to the face value (the money the US gov't got) that inflation meant the bonds would be worth less at maturity than what the buyers paid for them. Traders were willing to accept a known loss to avoid to risk of a much greater loss trying to hold some other asset.

As the above illustrates, the US must always pay its debts. As the major reserve currency, it's where investors go when everything else looks like a bad bet. Other currencies are too instable or vulnerable (Yuan, Yen[?], Euro) or there aren't enough reserves (Pound, Swiss Franc, CDN[which is also somewhat unstable]). Gold works well only if the price is stable, which tends not to be the case when there's a shortage of other investment options.

If the US defaults, there would literally be nowhere safe for money to go. Our economic models aren't set up for that eventuality. Just like many weren't set up to for a decline in housing prices in 2008.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Heh. Where were you in 2010? The bonds "losing their value," is an armageddon scenario. US bonds losing a scintilla of credibility results in financial chaos on a global scale.

Can you elaborate on that? When you say "losing their value is an armageddon scenario", don't bonds lose their value all the time when rates go up, or do you mean specifically U.S. bonds losing their risk-free status?
Bonds don't lose face value- they just can't be bought at the same rate. Bond value pretty much always goes up. If they go down, the conerstone of international finance goes with them.
Bond *funds* do go down when interest rates go up. The though being just getting a new bond is a better deal than sharing these lousy old bond profits.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Bond prices go down when interest rates go up. That's what I meant by value, their price on the open market. I didn't mean that the amount they pay on maturity.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I wonder who ghostwrote that OSC article.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:

At one point (2008 or 2010), the rest of the system was so screwy that people were buying US bonds close enough to the face value (the money the US gov't got) that inflation meant the bonds would be worth less at maturity than what the buyers paid for them. Traders were willing to accept a known loss to avoid to risk of a much greater loss trying to hold some other asset.

In fact, bond yields at one point reached 0%, meaning that it was guaranteed that the buyer would receive less than the face value of the bond when accounting for inflation.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
?

I think Lyrhawn is just being funny.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
?

I think Lyrhawn is just being funny.
Apparently not very.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
This week is a fun one:

quote:
The result is that the best candidate to run for the Republican nomination in many years, Scott Walker, became a victim of his own diffident, noncombative personality. Being “above the fray” made him invisible, even though he was the only candidate to have governed a state where he faced the gut-check issues.

His enemies try to portray him as anti-union, but that is false. He was against monopoly unions that use their power to steal from the pockets of taxpayers.

For many years in Wisconsin, where (as in most states) the state Democratic Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Education Association, Democratic Party officials supposedly represented the people when negotiating pay and benefits with the leftist ideologues of the NEA, who supposedly represented the teachers.

That meant that the teachers’ compensation packages had been “negotiated” with the NEA’s people sitting on both sides of the table. Nobody spoke for the taxpayers, and nobody spoke for non-radical-leftist teachers.

Walker’s changes were modest indeed, but you’d have thought he was beheading teachers in the public square. Teachers’ unions always claim that anyone who opposes them is “against education.” But when Walker faced a recall election and won, it became clear that a majority of Wisconsin voters knew that the NEA had been stealing from them, and wanted a slightly fairer sharing-out of taxpayer funds.


 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
And on the other hand we get:

quote:
And Sanders seems to be that rare thing among politicians: A decent human being who refuses to engage in personal attacks while trusting the people to listen to actual ideas and programs as they decide whom to vote for.

If I had to choose between Sanders and Trump, I’d choose Sanders.

Sanders really does seem to appeal to a lot of people across a broad political spectrum. He's pretty difficult to hate.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
His enemies try to portray him as anti-union, but that is false.
I'm deeply curious which unions Card thinks Walker likes.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Hypothetical ones.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Police unions actually.

So for people who think it isn't too onerous for poor people to acquire ID, how are they supposed to do so if there isn't even a DMV in their county?

quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
And on the other hand we get:

quote:
And Sanders seems to be that rare thing among politicians: A decent human being who refuses to engage in personal attacks while trusting the people to listen to actual ideas and programs as they decide whom to vote for.

If I had to choose between Sanders and Trump, I’d choose Sanders.

Sanders really does seem to appeal to a lot of people across a broad political spectrum. He's pretty difficult to hate.
He isn't black.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No, Walker doesn't like police unions. Rather, he's letting them exist as long as they promise to stump for him.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
No, Walker doesn't like police unions. Rather, he's letting them exist as long as they promise to stump for him.

This is usually the case for most Republican and right leaning independent politicians. They usually rely on the support of police unions; I can't really think of any prominent police union getting busted by a Republican.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Something funny happened a couple years ago when Walker proposed eliminating job protections for police and firemen over the objections of their unions (which had supported his original election.) Watching them try to figure out how to respond to that proposal was pure schadenfreude.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
This week is a fun one:

quote:
His enemies try to portray him as anti-union, but that is false.

what the hell universe do you even have to be from to say this and not realize that it may actually be one of the dumbest and most clearly untrue things you have ever said

no like seriously, is this a stealth comedy routine and in a month or two andy kaufman's gonna jump out and go 'surprise i've been ghostwriting for osc for years lol lololol'
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
I agree with him that Rubio/Fiorina is their best shot. That ticket has the best chance of getting them some of the Hispanic and possibly women vote that they'll definitely need.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
A) They'll never be nominated. B) They'd not win anyway.

So I'm liking this election season so far.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I agree with him that Rubio/Fiorina is their best shot. That ticket has the best chance of getting them some of the Hispanic and possibly women vote that they'll definitely need.

Fiorina I don't think represents womens issues at all so I don't know how it'd get any Democratic or undecided women voters. Maybe +1% from low information voters if Hillary isn't the Democratic nom. Republican women would vote R either way.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Nah, you have an information bias. It's not about undecided or "women voters." It's all about turnout. Women would show up to vote for a woman. That's the difference maker.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
i'm still not over that he says walker being 'anti-union' is a false accusation by liberals
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Fiorina is good TV. She's a mile wide and an inch deep, but lucky for her, Americans aren't very good at digging beneath the surface. Between the two of them, they'd likely have a very slick, smooth-talking, well-debated candidacy that I think would do very well. And I think they hit a demographic sweet spot that would peel away voters.

I think they'd also lose some of their core angry white man constituency who just can't get over voting for a POC and a woman. So they might even out (except the non-voters would likely come from states that would already be safely theirs, so they probably still win that).

I definitely wouldn't write them off as a successful duo, especially given Hillary's continuing dysfunction as a candidate, and Bernie's general X Factor which makes it hard to know who will do what when it comes to voting for him. I suspect, however, that minority voters won't be super excited for him, and minority turnout is key for Democratic wins. They'll definitely turn out for Hillary.

I think Hillary loses some of the youth vote, who, when they turn out (even more so now with their sheer numbers), can sway an entire election. Bernies has the chance to lead a youth wave to the White House. I don't think Hillary does.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

I definitely wouldn't write them off as a successful duo, especially given Hillary's continuing dysfunction as a candidate, and Bernie's general X Factor which makes it hard to know who will do what when it comes to voting for him. I suspect, however, that minority voters won't be super excited for him, and minority turnout is key for Democratic wins. They'll definitely turn out for Hillary.

The dude was part of the civil rights movement. He marched with MLK. What makes you think he'll be far less popular with minority voters than Clinton?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
He probably is thinking that some Bill mojo rubs off on Hilary, since black folks are supposed to love him. And I guess with Bernie, it's a case of "what have you done for me lately." Which is stupid, I know, but nobody ever accused voters of being critical thinkers.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

I definitely wouldn't write them off as a successful duo, especially given Hillary's continuing dysfunction as a candidate, and Bernie's general X Factor which makes it hard to know who will do what when it comes to voting for him. I suspect, however, that minority voters won't be super excited for him, and minority turnout is key for Democratic wins. They'll definitely turn out for Hillary.

The dude was part of the civil rights movement. He marched with MLK. What makes you think he'll be far less popular with minority voters than Clinton?