|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Jun 29, 2021 12:54:47 GMT
( 51:05) "I did More American Graffiti, it made ten cents. [It] just failed miserably. You can--you can do it. You can destroy these things, you know, it is possible."And what does he mean? He didn't. I think what he meant there is that the movie was, to use Stampid's phrasing, a commercial flop -- and yes, perhaps something of an artistic disappoint, too. He was saying it to Frank Oz in the context of worrying about going too far with Episode I (or simply revisiting his space opera franchise at all), and how "Titanic" came from nowhere and did monster box-office numbers. Remember, "Titanic" came out in December 1997, and pickups were done for TPM around a year later, between August 1998 and February 1999. The release date of Lucas' new Star Wars film (the first he had directed in 22 years) was fast approaching. Lucas is captured by the documentary makers in a vulnerable moment, ruminating on whether Star Wars might share the fate of a previous sequel to Lucas' first smash-hit movie. Maybe, as the earth-shattering horde of "Titanic" may have implied, Star Wars was just a fluke and its greatest days were already behind it. Commercially, of course, Lucas didn't need to worry -- TPM did great, as did the other prequels. Nevertheless, it's like he's sensing a disturbance through the Force, and vaguely foreseeing years of backlash to come. A really interesting moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Jun 29, 2021 14:28:49 GMT
We've strayed a bit in the last few posts from "grievances", which is good -- everyone deserves a rest. But I also want to get back to the main topic. If we've got grievances, so be it! This is the thread, is it not? Color me… not surprised. As a boy, I loved Boba Fett, for many of the sane reasons young boys did fall in love with Fett. As an adult, he still holds a special place in my heart, but I also know he is an immoral character on many levels. He is an immoral character that performs immoral acts, for immoral purposes, for immoral people/beings. Thus… his ship has an immoral name, that reflects his immoral behavior. It’s the same thing with Slave Leia. Yes, adolescent boys are going to fixate on the Bikini, but, the slave bikini is again the degradation of women from an immoral being, so eventually we should get the message that treating women like Jabba treated women is not a good thing. . But again, that nuance and context is lost as people look at just the imagery and clutch their pearls. You make some very good points here, Mike. Star Wars has always had this seedy underworld element -- it was there, and very much a key dimension of the story and the implication of a rich fantasy world with its own modalities and workings, ever since Han unloaded his blaster on Greedo in the cantina (after casually concealing it under a table, no less). Heck, the cantina itself is a den of iniquity, personified by the gruff bartender and the barfly who immediately starts hassling a young and innocent Luke who is keeping to himself ("I have the death sentence on twelve systems"). The whole setting is meant to be a little rough and grubby. As you say, the immoral name of his ship reflects Boba Fett's immoral behaviour. Even a more positive ship like the Millennium Falcon has been used to smuggle illicit goods and its owner was working for a major crime lord, and the earlier owner (Lando) lost it to Han through gambling. That thing has quite a history, and not all of that history is so clean or nice, much like the ship itself. Even more complexly, in the case of "Bikini Leia" (or yes, throwing it in their face: Slave Leia), Leia actually kills that ugly sumnabitch Jabba, her enslaver, with the very chain he enslaved her with -- a raunchy and nicely comic-book illustration of feminine power in action (the choking gesture could at least be considered slightly erotic). In other words, Lucas' women could be sexual, dynamic, revanchistic, snide, determined, capable, and compassionate, all in the same person. In Lucas' hands, Star Wars was a colourful, pulsating diorama of epic action, satisfying character beats, and delectable imagery ranging from the cold and ordered, to the warm and chaotic; even, at times, fetishistic. A true monument to the pulp sublime. It's actually Kathleen Kennedy's position that could be considered belittling and restrictive toward female empowerment; and reductive toward the many ways of being human. Take the Outlander Club in AOTC. Quite a few of the patrons, even if only shown in fleeting impressions, are clearly dressed in revealing outfits for a night on the town, and there's a relaxed, glass-clinking atmosphere to the whole place. It might be a touch sleazy, but sleaze is allowed in Lucas' Star Wars. Even on Naboo, Padme quietly gets her freak on -- sartorially speaking -- with Anakin at the fireplace in that country house. She even wears her hair down in sensual fashion in the next scene and appears in a nightie, gently imploring Anakin to open up about suffering another nightmare and to confess his acute concern for his mother. Later, on Tatooine, she seems more like the Emperor when she arrives in that heavy cloak, then maternal when she brings Anakin a beaker of blue milk and consoles him in his anguish; before departing for Geonosis, where she is dressed for battle. Again, lots of layers and textures to Lucas' female characters. But apparently, to Kennedy/Disney and their simplistic social justice algebra, putting women in bikinis = bad. I disagree with some of this. Although the human mind does look for scapegoats and simple solutions to complex problems, people aren't really "behind the eight ball" through their own doing -- at least, not all the time. It's more complex than that. Modern "Late Capitalism" really has produced gross inequality in the world, even in developed nations. Just look up charts on how much spending power has diminished (and how much living expenses, especially house prices, have rocketed) since the implementation of neoliberalism in the 1980s. Earlier generations may have hard tougher lives in some respects (this is where there needs to be more gratitude, I think), but earlier generations also had more wealth: they could buy houses, retire comfortably, and give their grandchildren an inheritance. A lot of that is gone now. Again, objective statistics can all be looked up on reputable sites/pages. Even Jordan Peterson (obviously no fan of the political left) calls modern college fees "indentured servitude" -- Jordan "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" Peterson!!! I mean, really, look how shocking the present paradigm actually is: www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/worlds-billionaires-have-more-wealth-46-billion-peoplewww.oxfam.org/en/5-shocking-facts-about-extreme-global-inequality-and-how-even-itOr this news report from just the other day: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57575077We're literally living in a world where a single person, who manipulates everything to his own selfish gain, including burying his own workers in an avalanche of union-busting measures, made £10 billion in a single day last year: www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/21/jeff-bezos-the-worlds-richest-man-added-10bn-to-his-fortune-in-just-one-daywww.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/12/jeff-bezos-amazon-workers-covid-19-scrooge-capitalismIndeed, in the Prequel Trilogy itself, Lucas showed that the rise of the Galactic Empire began with a dispute over taxation and corporate entities holding the government to ransom. The Trade Federation is based on the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the British East India Company -- and these companies really meant business (no pun): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Companyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_CompanyFrom an article on the official site written by Tim Veekhoven (Sompeetalay), president and co founder of TeeKay-421, the Belgian Star Wars Fanclub. Note that this article falls under the Disney timeframe (published Oct 2014), but it obviously sticks to the prequels and articulates a vitally important political subtext (the PT, in many ways, is a political melodrama) that most fans completely failed to grasp: www.starwars.com/news/the-trade-federation-and-neimoidians-a-historyIndeed, one of the precious exports these companies traded in, and fiercely competed over, was spices. Nothing in Star Wars is there by accident. It all reflects cogent political concerns on the part of its Maker. These companies cast a big shadow over many parts of the world and left a dark legacy -- just as the Trade Federation's actions eventually lead to the "Dark Times" described by Obi-Wan to Luke in ANH. From the following article: www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-company-original-corporate-raidersGeorge Lucas would seem to broadly agree with the above. In 2012, the year he sold to Disney, he chatted with Charlie Rose and said the following: The present system we have cannot possibly be the best of all worlds, the greatest of all remedies -- especially when it is presently placing the climate security of the entire planet (including many human population centres) in direct jeopardy. So a lot of what is being fought for, or against, on the left is actually valid. Unfortunately, people on the left also have a habit of going too far, and either punching down at the wrong targets or reacting to minor insults or criticism like an overactive immune system. Of course, I could correctly be accused of exactly the same thing right now in reverse -- punching back at these regressive leftists just as hard. And yes, I do do that, because I believe George Lucas and his magnificent Saga deserve a serious, hearty defence. In fact, to return this to the main topic, here's a good example of that. Thanks to Alessio for alerting me to this tweet. Alessio also has a different opinion of this flash-in-the pan controversy, and has argued that Disney are also selling other products with blander labelling and that the thing is being blown out of proportion -- well, maybe. What are Star Wars fans if not a bunch of blowing-things-out-of-proportion motherfuckers? Nevertheless, read the wording to this tweet to see a flavour of the problem: (Sorry for the possible duplication. Even though this message board embeds Twitter data, there's always the risk of a person's account being deleted, or them pulling tweets at a later time -- a not-uncommon occurrence in the transient Twitterverse.). You see the ignorant presumption and sneering rhetoric that these people always use to dismiss other points of view? They harbour such animosity and resentment themselves, they can't help projecting it -- and, unfortunately, kindling it -- in others. With these pathetic leftist fascist snowflakes, disagreement always entails them implying that you're a bad person -- even dangerous. Of course, their statement above is also a callow strawman. Nobody is saying they need to see the word "slave" to be happy. But it's the name of the fucking ship, you fucking asshole. (Not you, Mike! Sorry. Cryo getting sweary now.). Controlling language is how you control thought. We've seen it with TFN and we're seeing it all the time with these corporate entities and the toadies that defend their every move -- especially when it gives them another chance to show how morally superior they are. Should we ban everything else with the word "slave" in it? What about Grace Jones' song/album "Slave To The Rhythm"? Or is that acceptable because she's Grace Jones and she's black? Is "black" going next? "Brown people"? Come on, you little social justice creep. Get on all these, too: www.ranker.com/list/the-best-songs-with-slave-in-the-title/ranker-musicwww.ranker.com/list/the-best-movies-with-slave-in-the-title/referenceWhat? Do people need the word "slave" to be happy? Do people need hair to be happy? Nice skin? Smooth lips? A potted plant? Five crates of beer in the fridge? Pictures of naked women? Get on with your little crackdown! The casual explanation, so innocently offered, "They just decided to market it without a name that could be problematic."Ooooooooooooooh. So who gets to decide when something is problematic? So many things could be problematic in this world. I have a problem with most people simply fucking existing. Do I get to justify ethnic cleansing or population control? Nobody have any babies! I hate babies and people. If you're mad, you must need to eat babies or smell their farts to be happy or something. Even George Lucas explained the indignity of this sort of corporate "adjustment" very well back in 1974: Beautiful, George. Beautiful. It's exactly the gatekeeping rhetoric of people on the left -- especially that which is constantly employed by egomaniacs on Twitter -- which is always accompanied by an overbearing, holier-than-thou tone, that I find odious and offensive. I mean, here's a concept: If you don't like murder, death, mayhem, bikinis, and ships looking like daggers or being called "slave"-something, fuck off out of the fandom and watch My Little Pony instead? You see? Such invidious, abusive rhetoric always entails a similarly-flavoured counter-response. I don't mean to be quite that rude and I don't particularly enjoy it, but they push you into it. Would they dare say that shit to the face of George Lucas? That he should like their vandalism, and if he doesn't, he's the one with the issue? So, yes, I get where you and Alexrd are coming from, even if I don't agree with all of your underlying beliefs or worldviews. There's something really quite ugly in the constant virtue-signalling of those on the left. Of course, another issue with virtue-signalling is that it's basically performative and doesn't fix underlying social problems -- indeed, it may actually make them worse. Just look how people were commanded to avoid describing Rey as a "Mary Sue" and also to avoid "racist comments" on "characters of color" (whatever any of that actually means) -- when Rey fit many of the definitions (even if the particulars can fairly be debated) and Finn was portrayed through most of the Sequel Trilogy as a blundering fool (but Jar Jar is a "racist caricature"). The topic starter, herself a rabid "woke" commentator, was inhibiting people from even bringing those notions into a conscious discussion space -- even though she herself now constantly accuses the sequel films (or TLJ and TROS) of perpetrating (wait for it)... harmful racist and sexist stereotypes! Breathtaking hypocrisy. Probably, Mike. Probably. But there are also real issues that need addressing and fighting against in the present system. Nobody, in my opinion, should be without healthcare or going hungry in one of the wealthiest countries on Earth (I make the same claim for my country: the UK). Unfortunately, the bigger enemy in life, as you touched on, is the political machine. We all have to fight against these mindless droid factories that try to enforce their will and force everyone to think and feel the same way -- when that has never been the way of human beings and never will be. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Jun 29, 2021 17:00:50 GMT
But underlying that idea (as "good" as it sounds) is the premise that food and healthcare are a right, which I don't think they are. Healthcare is a service provided by someone. The creation (and distribution) of food is a service provided by someone. And nobody has a right to someone else's labour or service.
In my opinion, the basic problem is in the foundations, in the lack of moral values, integrity and responsibility. Altruism, charity, helping others is something that should be taught and fostered. And it's not. Rich or poor, people don't feel inclined to help others. They are taught that the government should do it for them. And even those who need help (and get it) don't feel inclined to return the favor. It's a problem in all levels of society. This is not an issue of rich vs poor or an issue of wealth distribution (why would wealth be evenly distributed to begin with if the road to wealth and financial success is risky and not something most people are willing to walk on?)
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Jun 29, 2021 18:08:40 GMT
Color me… not surprised. As a boy, I loved Boba Fett, for many of the sane reasons young boys did fall in love with Fett. As an adult, he still holds a special place in my heart, but I also know he is an immoral character on many levels. He is an immoral character that performs immoral acts, for immoral purposes, for immoral people/beings. Thus… his ship has an immoral name, that reflects his immoral behavior. It’s the same thing with Slave Leia. Yes, adolescent boys are going to fixate on the Bikini, but, the slave bikini is again the degradation of women from an immoral being, so eventually we should get the message that treating women like Jabba treated women is not a good thing. . But again, that nuance and context is lost as people look at just the imagery and clutch their pearls. Yet.. that nuance, that context, is lost on the new woke culture. Where this new found woke culture has convinced millions that their situation (financial, social, etc etc) is because they are a victim of someone else or something else (da system). Never mind that in the vast… vast majority of these “victims” lives, they are where they are because of the choices they made in life that directly put themselves behind the eight ball, not because the eight ball was placed in front of them by da man or da system. That new found victimization now entitles those millions to look for anything they deem offensive and proof of their victimization, sans nuance and context. Thus, corporations like Disney, Coke, NFL, feel the need to virtue signal to show they are in alignment with these victims. Thus… Slave I is no longer Slave I. This movement is here to stay. With much of our cultural institutions controlled by the left that buys into this way of thinking, they are putting more and more of this woke agenda into the entertainment and corporate world. With a American President that is not strong enough to hold back his left flank, with Congressional Democrats caving into that sane left flank so they can hold their titles and seats of power in the party, this movement is not going to go away anytime soon. The feminists see it as degrading and that's precisely why they don't like it. The funny thing is, I've seen role reversal cosplays where the woman dresses as Han, and the man dresses in a Slave Leia Bikini. When people say that feminists just want what men have, it isn't entirely untrue. Role reversal cosplays like the one I have mentioned are proof of that. The moralizing surrounding the bikini is all nonesense as far as I'm concerned. Personally I don't have a problem if filmmakers dress men or women in that manner. It is the hypocrisy of complaining about it, but then dressing men in the same manner that I find hilarious beyond measure. All I can do at this point is lawl at this stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Jun 29, 2021 18:08:55 GMT
But underlying that idea (as "good" as it sounds) is the premise that food and healthcare are a right, which I don't think they are. So it's right to let someone starve to death? It's right for them to go to school (or work) nutritionally deficient? It's right to land patients with healthcare bills so enormous that they have to mortgage their house or sell their car in order to pay them -- even if they have a rare condition that means they require expensive treatment/medication? No, in a civilised society, where wealthy countries have GDP measured in the hundreds of billions and even the trillions, I think we can -- and ought -- to do better than that. One could just as easily casually opine that sanitation isn't a right, or clean drinking water, or the right to live according to one's conscience. It's called progress. We don't live in a jungle, or a desert, and the idea that people must prove themselves worthy of basic protections is anti-civilisational and inhuman. Yeah -- and you know what? In a lot of countries, the entity rendering that service and funding it is the government, not private enterprise (or exclusively so). For some reason, this is a major problem in the United States ( the richest country on Earth), but not in any of the following countries: worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-universal-healthcare(I'm not saying all countries do it equally well, but there are over 100 of them. The United States has no good excuse. Just corporate ones and morons opposed to "Big Government" -- even when corporations are screwing them to death.). Put it this way, Alex: Did you create the Internet? Lay down the pipes, and the reservoirs, and the treatment facilities for clean drinking water? Build the roads? Install the power grid infrastructure? You might have a job in one of these areas (I don't know you), but these are all things in which government and private enterprise go together -- and then we all become the beneficiaries. Not one person on Earth remotely has the intellectual acumen or corporeal capability to develop these vast networks and enormous infrastructure single-handed. Thus, everyone on Earth fails the entry-level in terms of competence on an utterly spectacular scale. This is where government has to step in and ensure that everyone can enjoy the basic fruits of modern society. Indeed, corporations pivot directly on that: i.e., without an educated population, without reliable roads, without the infrastructure of the Internet, Big Business wouldn't be able to operate or post massive profits because there wouldn't be anybody competent or reliable enough to employ, and no infrastructure to take advantage of (e.g., bad roads would lead to many delivery failures and many accidents and delays). The creation and distribution of food relies on many different people and systems coming together. Again, however, when people can no longer afford to eat correctly -- or at all -- then the workforce quickly becomes depleted, and the society buggered. This happened, for instance, in the Soviet Union. Also, a lot of food is actually wasted; it spoils and isn't sold or doesn't reach the people who need it. There is a lot of inequality and waste in the present system. You say this stuff like it means something. Capitalism thrives on just the reverse: you're expected to have a job, and if you don't, you can (normally) obtain welfare payments, but these are highly conditional and usually come with the expectation of a claimant taking steps to look for work. In that sense, most people are actually forced (or harassed/coerced) into work. A lot of labour is performed against a person's will -- literally when slavery and indentured servitude were common (and they haven't gone away). The fact you can sit there and type those words, without any sense of irony, is actually a measure of how rapid and effective the very progress you're sneering at has been. People's material circumstances have gotten better. My argument is simply that such progress is far from over; and right now, it is being compromised by the machinations of corporations enjoying unprecedented levels of wealth (mostly from evading tax obligations). I can agree with you here because this isn't necessarily an "either/or" situation. It feels like we have slid backwards in a number of ways. But capitalism is again to blame by stressing people out, forcing them to take jobs they don't want, overwhelming them with consumerist garbage, and creating a vast sense of alienation by inculcating selfishness as a virtue (competition and "everyone for themselves"-style thinking over collaboration, empathy, and a strong sense of community). Do you think George Lucas misspoke in the Charlie Rose clip? Was he just off his meds that day? Or do you think he maybe, actually had a point? |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Jun 29, 2021 18:29:01 GMT
On a related note, Wall-E (written by Ben Burtt) says just about everything that needs to be said about the problem with our modern world. "Morality" can't fix this. We need to connect to nature and each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Jun 29, 2021 20:58:27 GMT
So it's right to let someone starve to death? It's right for them to go to school (or work) nutritionally deficient? It's right to land patients with healthcare bills so enormous that they have to mortgage their house or sell their car in order to pay them -- even if they have a rare condition that means they require expensive treatment/medication? Of course not. I'm not even following the correlation you're making with my reply. Making healthcare a right doesn't make healthcare providers sprout out of thin air, ready to serve you in the area you live and when you need them. Making food a right won't make it appear on your plate. They cost time, money and individual initiative. Healthcare has many specialized fields, it has a lot of responsibility involved. Should it be accessible and affordable? Should those providing the service be payed less in order for that to happen? My point is that nobody has a right, or is entitled, to someone else's labour. But all of us, if we accept and follow the same moral guidelines, should be able to assist those in need within our capacity. No, in a civilised society, where wealthy countries have GDP measured in the hundreds of billions and even the trillions, I think we can -- and ought -- to do better than that. One could just as easily casually opine that sanitation isn't a right, or clean drinking water, or the right to live according to one's conscience. It's called progress. We don't live in a jungle, or a desert, and the idea that people must prove themselves worthy of basic protections is anti-civilisational and inhuman. Prove themselves worthy?! That's not what I'm saying at all. Who provides those basic protections? Yeah -- and you know what? In a lot of countries, the entity rendering that service and funding it is the government, not private enterprise (or exclusively so). For some reason, this is a major problem in the United States ( the richest country on Earth), but not in any of the following countries: Because correlation doesn't equal causation. The government (tax payers) funding the healthcare service doesn't make it accessible nor universal. The tax payers in the middle of the countryside doesn't have the same healthcare being provided to him as someone who lives in the middle of the city. Yet they both are forced to pay the same. And because of the government outreach in the healthcare sector in those countries (either through regulation or actual control) the private sector isn't able to compete or flourish at an affordable cost for the patient. Put it this way, Alex: Did you create the Internet? Lay down the pipes, and the reservoirs, and the treatment facilities for clean drinking water? Build the roads? Install the power grid infrastructure? You might have a job in one of these areas (I don't know you), but these are all things in which government and private enterprise go together -- and then we all become the beneficiaries. Not one person on Earth remotely has the intellectual acumen or corporeal capability to develop these vast networks and enormous infrastructure single-handed. Thus, everyone on Earth fails the entry-level in terms of competence on an utterly spectacular scale. You are misreading my point. The creation and distribution of food relies on many different people and systems coming together. Again, however, when people can no longer afford to eat correctly -- or at all -- then the workforce quickly becomes depleted, and the society buggered. This happened, for instance, in the Soviet Union. Also, a lot of food is actually wasted; it spoils and isn't sold or doesn't reach the people who need it. There is a lot of inequality and waste in the present system. Yes, there is. But it's not because of "the 1%" or wealthy vs poor. You say this stuff like it means something. Capitalism thrives on just the reverse: you're expected to have a job, and if you don't, you can (normally) obtain welfare payments, but these are highly conditional and usually come with the expectation of a claimant taking steps to look for work. In that sense, most people are actually forced (or harassed/coerced) into work. A lot of labour is performed against a person's will -- literally when slavery and indentured servitude were common (and they haven't gone away). That has nothing to do with capitalism. Everyone is expected to have a job. A job contributes to one's sustenance and livelihood. How else do you think everyhing comes out of? You can't claim for rights to healthcare, food, welfare and then ignore completely how all those things are financed and provided: through jobs and by taxing the income. To have a job, to work, to provide (to oneself and one's family)is more than an expectation: it's a duty. Or as far as I'm concerned, it should be. The fact you can sit there and type those words, without any sense of irony, is actually a measure of how rapid and effective the very progress you're sneering at has been. People's material circumstances have gotten better. My argument is simply that such progress is far from over; and right now, it is being compromised by the machinations of corporations enjoying unprecedented levels of wealth (mostly from evading tax obligations). Tax evasion (which is a crime) happens in all levels of society. And it's a great example of the point I'm trying to make. That people find it morally acceptable to do so (wether due to excessive taxes, or due to government wasting taxpayer's money, or simply because they don't care) is a problem. But it's not the main problem. The cause is the same though. And I'm an advocate of low taxes for all. I can agree with you here because this isn't necessarily an "either/or" situation. It feels like we have slid backwards in a number of ways. But capitalism is again to blame by stressing people out, forcing them to take jobs they don't want, overwhelming them with consumerist garbage, and creating a vast sense of alienation by inculcating selfishness as a virtue (competition and "everyone for themselves"-style thinking over collaboration, empathy, and a strong sense of community). Do you think George Lucas misspoke in the Charlie Rose clip? Was he just off his meds that day? Or do you think he maybe, actually had a point? Capitalism is the freedom to own and exchange goods. It's a system, not an ideology. It doesn't have an agency towards people. It doesn't force you to consume, it doesn't force you do be selfish, it doesn't force you to be have a material lifestyle. And I do think Lucas has a point. Compassion is a moral principle. It's the point I've been making all along. |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Jun 29, 2021 21:14:46 GMT
"Should those providing the service be payed less in order for that to happen? My point is that nobody has a right, or is entitled, to someone else's labour."
And yet, here we are. I wrote a lot more, but I'm sure we all know the reality of the situation. People are not equal, it needs to be addressed and eugenics (soft or hard) is not an option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Jun 29, 2021 22:34:24 GMT
"Our people are dying, Senator. We must do something quickly to stop the Federation."
"To be realistic, Your Majesty, I think we're going to have to accept Federation control for the time being."
"That is something I cannot do."
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Jun 29, 2021 22:39:18 GMT
Pyrogenic. The voice of sanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Jun 29, 2021 22:48:50 GMT
It's too late in the day for me respond to all this capitalist-enabling libertarian drivel. Just a sample should suffice: You say this stuff like it means something. Capitalism thrives on just the reverse: you're expected to have a job, and if you don't, you can (normally) obtain welfare payments, but these are highly conditional and usually come with the expectation of a claimant taking steps to look for work. In that sense, most people are actually forced (or harassed/coerced) into work. A lot of labour is performed against a person's will -- literally when slavery and indentured servitude were common (and they haven't gone away). That has nothing to do with capitalism. Everyone is expected to have a job. A job contributes to one's sustenance and livelihood. How else do you think everyhing comes out of? You can't claim for rights to healthcare, food, welfare and then ignore completely how all those things are financed and provided: through jobs and by taxing the income. To have a job, to work, to provide (to oneself and one's family)is more than an expectation: it's a duty. Or as far as I'm concerned, it should be. That's a gross oversimplification. First off, jobs are not all created equal, and there are actually many pointless jobs around. You know why? Capitalism. Some people get it, like this guy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_JobsThis is a good article by the same guy: evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-david-graeber/Over the past 150 years or so, we've seen an increasing trend toward more and more automation. No job sector is safe from this trend. Guess what that means? Mass unemployment by the billions. This video makes a good argument that employment, as we know it, is soon coming to an end, and there's basically nothing we can do to stop it happening -- nor should we. It will be a cause for celebration (at least, for all those people who never swallowed the puritan/capitalist dogma to begin with): BTW, we were hunter-gatherers once upon a time (and some humans still are). In hunter-gatherer societies, work and attendant levels of stress are far lower than they are in the modern globalised economy. And we still possess hunter-gatherer brains and adrenal systems. We have not evolved fast enough to cope with the demands of modern life. Perhaps -- just perhaps -- there is so much rampant drug abuse, gun crime, depression/anxiety, escapism into movies and video games, unsatisfactory relationships, apathy, and neglect (of the body/mind/soul), and what you see as selfishness/amorality, because this is far from the best of all worlds and people thirst for something better. Of course, many people defend the status quo regardless. Now, you see... You say tax evasion is a crime, but it actually happens. The worst offenders don't get punished because they control the system enough to avoid legal consequences altogether. And your solution to this very deliberate, very systemic form of tax evasion, enabled by paid-off, shyster politicians and assorted bureaucrats is to simply... *drum roll*... lower taxes for everyone! Perfect. Great. Don't deal with the problem -- simply make taxes so low that it becomes a relative non-issue if one person/entity is dodging it versus another. I see your sneaky sleight-of-hand there. No. People should be meeting their tax obligations. And corporations should absolutely be paying a lot more than they do. This isn't hard. It's been done before. Taxes were way, way higher on high-earners in the United States in the middle of the last century. Then corporate interests got really big and started bribing politicians -- et voila! Lower tax rates, combined with widespread corporate tax evasion (and plenty of nice government subsidies/handouts, too). Incidentally, this is the same situation George Lucas depicts in TPM. But I guess we can ignore George Lucas and his cogent storytelling and worldbuilding when it's convenient. Oh, Jesus. Capitalism is both a system and an ideology. Like any major organisational system, it is rooted in certain axioms and assumptions and ideas -- i.e., ideology. It is also propped up by certain mechanisms, including ideological thinktanks, like the ones that contrived to drive left-wing strands of thought out of universities and other academic institutions in the 1970s, when a threat was perceived to the existing capitalist model (catalysed by the 1970s energy crisis): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeoliberalismIt's a system, an ideology, an all-consuming thing. For you to shrug and make out it's merely as natural as the air we breathe, and imply that any attempts to overthrow or significantly modify it are basically seditious (because, in your earlier words, people on the left revel in "amorality"), is merely proof of how effective and extensive capitalist propaganda actually is. Sorry, but there have been other systems before capitalism, and there will be other systems after it -- if there's still a habitable planet left, anyway. Furthermore, while capitalism may not necessarily "force" people to do anything, it nevertheless places certain pressures on people to conform a certain way, do a certain thing, and adopt a certain lifestyle and a particular way of looking at the world -- exactly as you are doing. It protects itself by convincing people not to seek alternatives, and that they should simply continue on like good little consumers in the present system. Fuck, Lucas' first film, "THX-1138", is practically all about this. And, frankly, it does mete out an array of punishments to people who resist -- which is also why a lot of people don't bother. From being dismissed at work for objecting to wrong treatment, to police intimidation and outright brutality toward people protesting racial injustice or climate change, to swiftly blackening the names and reputations of people who agitate for a better system -- to the staggering despoliation of the entire Earth (which doesn't have a voice except when humans stand up and speak on its behalf), which is especially terrible with the rampant destruction of the Amazon rainforest and us being in the middle of the world's sixth major extinction event (recognised to be a result of human activity). But how can you expect people to be moral in a bad system? Just look what happens to an abused animal: they become cowed, fearful, unsocial, aggressive. You are deliberately focusing on only the second-half of what Lucas said and ignoring the first, which is just as important. Lucas said and I quote again: Lucas is saying the system(s) are wrong -- exactly the very thing you're denying. In other words, it's bigger than just putting the blame on people, or individuals. His words are clearly an argument for system reform -- again, you are deliberately evading this. Just like your un-acknowledgement of the political situation shown in Episode I. "Should those providing the service be payed less in order for that to happen? My point is that nobody has a right, or is entitled, to someone else's labour." And yet, here we are. I wrote a lot more, but I'm sure we all know the reality of the situation. People are not equal, it needs to be addressed and eugenics (soft or hard) is not an option. Yeah, I'm done here. When one side denies there are serious problems and shuns any information or data that points that out, it's futile carrying on. Plus, it's been a long day and I'm tired. Goodnight, Sally! |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Jun 29, 2021 23:00:15 GMT
GEORGE LUCAS: The legal system, the financial system, the political system: they're all based on "winner take all". That's not a good society, that's not a good culture. That's a culture that is built out of a cavemen mentality where the guy with the biggest hammer wins. That's not a good society.
^if you emphasize the words NOT and GOOD, you can totally read this in Jordan Peterson's voice.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jun 29, 2021 23:26:15 GMT
Well, I was about to respond.. but it would just be seen as "drivel"... GEORGE LUCAS: The legal system, the financial system, the political system: they're all based on "winner take all". That's not a good society, that's not a good culture. That's a culture that is built out of a cavemen mentality where the guy with the biggest hammer wins. That's not a good society. ^if you emphasize the words NOT and GOOD, you can totally read this in Jordan Peterson's voice. Hmmm. I am a huge fan of Jordan Peterson.. You shouldn't envoke someone's name without understanding their stances, their views, etc etc. Jordan Peterson on Twitter from March of this year.. : Sorry Jordan.. You are speaking drivel... I am also a huge fan of Thomas Sowell... |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Jun 29, 2021 23:47:19 GMT
How did you know I was a Thomas Sowell guy? My comment about Jordan Peterson was more about his voice and his tendency to use the phrase NOT GOOD. He's a milquetoast liberal, and I'm not sure what your point is.
For the record, my point of view is part Bernie Bro and part Proud Boy. Part Alex Jones, part Jimmy Dore. Not gonna defend my views here, just thought I'd be transparent.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jun 29, 2021 23:58:53 GMT
How did you know I was a Thomas Sowell guy? My comment about Jordan Peterson was more about his voice and his tendency to use the phrase NOT GOOD. He's a milquetoast liberal, and I'm not sure what your point is. For the record, my point of view is part Bernie Bro and part Proud Boy. Part Alex Jones, part Jimmy Dore. Not gonna defend my views here, just thought I'd be transparent. I think my point is quite clear. You name drop Peterson, in association with a quote that can be easily scene as anti-capitlist, in a coversation about capitalism, and you are suggesting that you were only doing so because of a common phrase of "not good". Ok I will take your word for it, but, my point still stands. You envoked the name of a man who is not anti-capitilsm, that does not link inequality to capitalism. Thus if you are telling the truth, which I have no reason to believe you are lying, than the irony in name dropping someone that does not link capitilism to inequality, to a quote that takes it's shots at capitalism is quite delicious. Thomas Sowell is a great thinker. I will listen to his interviews and lectures all day long. Greater speaker, commanding voice. We need more people like him. |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Jun 30, 2021 0:09:25 GMT
How did you know I was a Thomas Sowell guy? My comment about Jordan Peterson was more about his voice and his tendency to use the phrase NOT GOOD. He's a milquetoast liberal, and I'm not sure what your point is. For the record, my point of view is part Bernie Bro and part Proud Boy. Part Alex Jones, part Jimmy Dore. Not gonna defend my views here, just thought I'd be transparent. I think my point is quite clear. You name drop Peterson, in association with a quote that can be easily scene as anti-capitlist, in a coversation about capitalism, and you are suggesting that you were only doing so because of a common phrase of "not good". Ok I will take your word for it, but, my point still stands. You envoked the name of a man who is not anti-capitilsm, that does not link inequality to capitalism. Thus if you are telling the truth, which I have no reason to believe you are lying, than the irony in name dropping someone that does not link capitilism to inequality, to a quote that takes it's shots at capitalism is quite delicious. Thomas Sowell is a great thinker. I will listen to his interviews and lectures all day long. Greater speaker, commanding voice. We need more people like him. I'm not convinced you understand either of those quotes, let alone Lucas or Peterson's politics. But who am I to deny you your deliciousness? |
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jun 30, 2021 0:24:43 GMT
I think my point is quite clear. You name drop Peterson, in association with a quote that can be easily scene as anti-capitlist, in a coversation about capitalism, and you are suggesting that you were only doing so because of a common phrase of "not good". Ok I will take your word for it, but, my point still stands. You envoked the name of a man who is not anti-capitilsm, that does not link inequality to capitalism. Thus if you are telling the truth, which I have no reason to believe you are lying, than the irony in name dropping someone that does not link capitilism to inequality, to a quote that takes it's shots at capitalism is quite delicious. Thomas Sowell is a great thinker. I will listen to his interviews and lectures all day long. Greater speaker, commanding voice. We need more people like him. I'm not convinced you understand either of those quotes, let alone Lucas or Peterson's politics. But who am I to deny you your deliciousness? Than please, by all means, enlighten me. It's easy to just say someone doesn't understand either quote and run away. As a subscriber to Peterson's podcast, youtube channel, viewer of his old lectures, newer interviews etc etc I know what I know. Am I an expert on the man, by all means no. There is only one expert on Jordan Peterson, and that is the man himself. So please.. enlighten me on what Peterson means with his quote... Now to Lucas... Lucas himself has come out and said he is not a capitalist (many times actually)... www.theblaze.com/news/2012/01/20/george-lucas-billionaire-filmmaker-down-on-capitalismSo you are suggesting that I do not understand a quote from a man that clearly has anti-capitalist views, when he takes shots at a "financial" system that has a winner take all mentality? I wonder what "financial" system he could have been talking about... ? Again, please enlighten me... |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Jun 30, 2021 1:00:43 GMT
I could teach you how to read, but I charge by the hour, and I don't need the money. 🤷♂️
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Jun 30, 2021 1:06:41 GMT
Gotta admit, when it comes to the debate on economics I'm out of my depth. I've never learned a damned thing about economics, considering I'm an English Major, and was never very interested in the topic to begin with. Therefore, it is difficult to take a sincere stand for or against capitalism. Furthermore, it is insanely difficult to form an opinion because the debate clearly inflames people to the point that it would be difficult to trust any one person on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jun 30, 2021 1:07:57 GMT
I could teach you how to read, but I charge by the hour, and I don't need the money. 🤷♂️ About what i expected… |
|
