https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

The angry incels will probably blame Rían Johnson for Abrams’ failure, despite the fact that he has historically sucked at wrapping up plot threads in a believable manner.

I just hope it’s fun.

#WattoGangRiseUp

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

If the critics didn't like it, then I will probably love it. Most "critics" nowadays just want to bloviate and sniff their own farts up on their mountain of judgement as they hand out art lessons to the plebeians down below.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

If the critics didn't like it, then I will probably love it. Most "critics" nowadays just want to bloviate and sniff their own farts up on their mountain of judgement as they hand out art lessons to the plebeians down below.

They’d also probably use the world bloviate.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

If the critics didn't like it, then I will probably love it. Most "critics" nowadays just want to bloviate and sniff their own farts up on their mountain of judgement as they hand out art lessons to the plebeians down below.

Man that's just a weird way to go through life.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

If the critics didn't like it, then I will probably love it. Most "critics" nowadays just want to bloviate and sniff their own farts up on their mountain of judgement as they hand out art lessons to the plebeians down below.

Man that's just a weird way to go through life.

He’s the Armond White of the forums.

At least we got more John Williams.

I'm seeing it Thursday night. After finally rewatching The Last Jedi, I'm ready to accept however it all shakes out.

At least we got more John Williams.

I'm seeing it Thursday night. After finally rewatching The Last Jedi, I'm ready to accept however it all shakes out.

Like at least it'll have some grand visuals and a John Williams score blasting out of theatre speakers. I'm just happy that we got The Last Jedi and am at least curious how the 9 episodes come to an end.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

If the critics didn't like it, then I will probably love it. Most "critics" nowadays just want to bloviate and sniff their own farts up on their mountain of judgement as they hand out art lessons to the plebeians down below.

Man that's just a weird way to go through life.

He’s the Armond White of the forums.

I had to Google him, but you might be right. I also disliked There Will Be Blood, Up and Toy Story 3. Especially TS3. I also enjoyed G.I. Joe (while recognizing it was bad), Grown Ups and Chuck & Larry. I would also use Idiosyncratic and contrarian as adjectives for "me". And if I'm labeled as a "smart and knowing troll" as well, then it seems you have correctly identified ManKitten's persona.

I heard that this weeks episode of Mandolorian has a tie-in to Rise of Skywalker, which is why this weeks episode was released today instead of Friday.

Spoiler prediction, everyone is a clone.

Critical consensus is a terrible place to judge for individual appreciation though. Many people use “critics don’t like it” as a motivator to look into it and not irregularly does the audience end up disagreeing.

I'm seeing it Thursday night. After finally rewatching The Last Jedi, I'm ready to accept however it all shakes out.

I just thought of an exception to this - if there's time travel, I'm out.

Spoiler prediction, everyone is a clone.

Yep. That's been my theory too, basically. Not that it matters, since Disney seemingly didn't plan for a darn thing but to make Trash Compactors Full of Money by owning the Star Wars IP.

And it's probably right.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

The angry incels will probably blame Rían Johnson for Abrams’ failure, despite the fact that he has historically sucked at wrapping up plot threads in a believable manner.

I just hope it’s fun.

#WattoGangRiseUp

The Screenplay is Chris Terrio (Justice League, Batman vs Superman) and JJ Abrams (Lost), so there is already plenty of precedence for convoluted messes story wise. Which, of course, is why they were chosen to write the "ending" to one of the biggest modern IPs ever after since Disney just kind of threw stuff to the wall to see what would stick.

#JarJarSithLordShouldBeCannon

I had to Google him, but you might be right. I also disliked There Will Be Blood, Up and Toy Story 3. Especially TS3. I also enjoyed G.I. Joe (while recognizing it was bad), Grown Ups and Chuck & Larry. I would also use Idiosyncratic and contrarian as adjectives for "me". And if I'm labeled as a "smart and knowing troll" as well, then it seems you have correctly identified ManKitten's persona.

I don't know if I would label him a troll though. His life experience is just radically different than most I think.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/movie-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-fred-rogers-faith-missing/

I find this to be a fascinatingly interesting take even though I think it's dead wrong (In my opinion, Roger's own faith was undercut by his support of Republicans like Regan in real life. Any appeal to faith would necessarily be hollow). But I am so glad he wrote this and that I read it. He has done me a service, which is the opposite of a troll.

He is also sometimes 100% correct:

Cinema as a unifying public event is being phased out by private streaming of narrative content.

I also disliked There Will Be Blood,

I really enjoyed it. Having worked in the oil patch, I appreciated how well they depicted drilling in that time period. Lots of little details that made it feel authentic. Also, having sat across the table as a land owner negotiating drilling rights, I recognized the underhanded tactics Daniel Day Lewis's character was using. Very realistic.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

The angry incels will probably blame Rían Johnson for Abrams’ failure, despite the fact that he has historically sucked at wrapping up plot threads in a believable manner.

I just hope it’s fun.

#WattoGangRiseUp

If you replace “angry incels” with “fans of the franchise who don’t like the direction the series has taken”, I agree :)

Truly, for those who aren’t pleased with how things have gone, I do think there is plenty of blame to go around. I was something of a Last Jedi defender when it came out. But I’ve since come to feel that while I do enjoy it as a stand-alone movie, I think it did a lot of harm to the series as a whole, including the fact that it left Episode 9 in a very difficult position (apparently Ryan Johnson took the 3-movie plan that was in place and threw it directly out the window). So any filmmaker would struggle to tie things together in a meaningful way with episode 9. The fact that JJ’s greatest weakness is arguably his inability to finish a story in a satisfying way is just the icing on the cake.

Reading between the lines, JJ has ever-so-subtly been throwing RJ under the bus recently (saying things like “Last Jedi didn’t really derail our plans”; corporate speak for “Ive fixed things despite how badly TLJ derailed our plans). This makes me think that RoS will probably not click with the people who enjoyed TLJ. And if I had to bet, based on all the spoilers and leaks I’ve read (most of which have been confirmed at this point), I doubt old-school Star Wars fans will particularly enjoy it.

For myself, I’m going in hoping to watch a movie that looks and sounds good, but I’m utterly detached from the story at this point. This entire trilogy doesn’t, doesn’t count in my mind.

But I’ve since come to feel that while I do enjoy it as a stand-alone movie, I think it did a lot of harm to the series as a whole, including the fact that it left Episode 9 in a very difficult position (apparently Ryan Johnson took the 3-movie plan that was in place and threw it directly out the window).

Because, if Force Awakens is any indication, that plan was bad.

Reading between the lines, JJ has ever-so-subtly been throwing RJ under the bus recently (saying things like “Last Jedi didn’t really derail our plans”; corporate speak for “Ive fixed things despite how badly TLJ derailed our plans).

IMO Last Jedi was the 'fix'.

For myself, I’m going in hoping to watch a movie that looks and sounds good, but I’m utterly detached from the story at this point. This entire trilogy doesn’t, doesn’t count in my mind.

SequelTrilogy.isnotcanon.net

#JarJarSithLordShouldBeCannon

#PlinkettWasRight

Feature request: spoiler tags hiding video embeds.

Pretty much.

I am hugely disappointed in this new trilogy. The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi both have some great moments, but both also have big flaws.

The Force Awakens “forgot” to do ANY work to set up what’s been going on since Return of the Jedi. We get entire star systems and fleets destroyed that we know nothing about. But, it also had a lot of fun and felt like Star Wars in a good way.

The Last Jedi has some huge pacing issues, and it took the strange line that what fans wanted was a disgruntled Luke and some larger commentary on how the Light vs Dark conflict might be less important to the galaxy than it is to our heroes. Now, I love some of that. The ideas that we learn through failure and that maybe the purely pious approach of the Jedi at their height was bad for everyone, but the movie took far too much of a left turn into side issues when I think most fans were ready to get to the meat of the heroes’ story. I’d totally enjoy a stand-alone Last Jedi with its “radical” take on things... but it wasn’t in a stand-alone position...

And now we have a movie that is stuck dealing with the disparity between the other two. It’s built on a wildly uneven foundation where it feels like two construction companies didn’t even agree on the building plans... but tried to build anyway. I’m kinda dreading Rise of Skywalker if only because the lack of vision and enforcement on the previous two movies has already doomed it.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

If the critics didn't like it, then I will probably love it. Most "critics" nowadays just want to bloviate and sniff their own farts up on their mountain of judgement as they hand out art lessons to the plebeians down below.

I find the gap in recent years has shifted around the fact that the majority of mainstream movie reviewers are part of the hyper “woke” crowd, and the vast majority of movie goers are decidedly not. Hence the huge discrepancies we get when comparing critic reviews to viewer reviews on a great deal of films/tv shows recently. Without getting into the whole can of worms around who’s “right”, I’d say that viewing most mainstream movie reviews through that lens is a good indicator of whether or not you’ll agree with the reviews.

I find the whole Star Wars situation fascinating right now. Kathleen Kennedy went out of her way to make a big deal about how she was taking Star Wars in a “woke” direction, which the mainstream media largely loved. She leaned into this hard in the lead up to TLJ, because she and Rian Johnson were particularly aligned in their political views, and she felt she’d found the director that best fit her “vision” for Star Wars (hence the announcement that RJ was getting his own trilogy at roughly the same time that TLJ was released). Naturally, most mainstream reviewers praised TLJ, and tried to slime all the movie’s critics as being hateful, misogynistic man-babies, because apparently that’s the only possible reason to dislike the movie (eyeroll.gif). KK and RJ joined in this tactic as well, looking down their noses at the very fan base they were ostensibly in charge of pleasing. It looks to me like KK and RJ were embodying Kylo Ren’s line from Last Jedi: “Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.” They weren’t interested in pleasing Star Wars fans. They were going to make a new Star Wars, and it would attract new and better fans.

But now we’re in an interesting place. Setting aside anyone’s feelings on any of the political views going on, Star Wars is in trouble. TLJ made over $700,000,000 less than The Force Awakens, Solo flopped, merch sales are at all-time lows, and the Star Wars theme park is bleeding money. Remember, all of this comes on the back of a deal in which Disney’s own bean-counters believe they overpaid for Star Wars to begin with. With all this in mind, Disney NEEDS Rise of Skywalker to be a massive hit. And they know that another movie like TLJ won’t do it. Notice how much the marketing for Rise of Skywalker is leaning on nostalgia? When the first trailer came out, it contained more footage from the original trilogy than of the new movie. KK and RJ’s apparent plan to attract a new fan base was an absolute failure. This point is driven home further by the success of The Mandelorian, as it is being handled by a totally separate team under John Favreau. That team has found success and fan appreciation where KK and RJ have failed.

Disney NEEDS old-school Star Wars fans, but that’s no easy task considering how many of them have had their concerns dismissed and their character attacked in the past couple years. It also puts the mainstream media in a strange spot. You can see the direction that the lead-up coverage has gone. This isn’t the celebratory coverage we saw around Avengers End Game. That is telling. Movie coverage is a bit like video game coverage, where the mainstream outlets tend to talk about the things the studios want them to talk about. So most of the coverage ends up having a “state media” vibe. And with Rise of Skywalker, the sense I get from the coverage is that expectations are being reigned in. Lots of “it’s impossible to please everyone” talk, or Kathleen Kennedy’s statement about how much tougher it is to “finish” Star Wars because they don’t have books or comics to draw from (apparently she isn’t aware that there were 20+ years of Star Wars books to draw from, and her team made the decision to wipe them all out of canon). I think Disney thinks they’re in for a rough landing.

Then there are the reviews. With so many reviewers defending TLJ, what happens when Disney goes out of their way to make it clear that RoS is not going to be like TLJ? How do they react when Disney is actively trying to attract the old-school fan base that the mainstream reviewers have spent 2 years insulting? When I see such middling reviews for Rise of Skywalker, I’m not sure if it’s because the movie is mediocre, or if it is simply less “woke” than TLJ. We’re now in a situation where all signs point towards Kathleen Kennedy and her “woke” Star Wars agenda are on the way out. This could very easily turn the hyper-woke media against Star Wars. That won’t really matter to Disney IF they can make Star Wars movies that recapture the love of the fan base. I don’t think JJ knows how to do that in an ideal situation, much less following TLJ. I won’t be surprised if Rise of Skywalker ends up being the final blow that marks a sweeping “changing of the guards” within Disney and their Star Wars team.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

An internet forum discussing Star Wars opinions in measured and reasonable exchanges?

You guys are the best.

Like Cruel and Raga, I enjoyed TLJ as a standalone film, and never really considered the impact on the bigger story.

To be honest, after the relative disappointment of the Prequel Trilogy I sort of drifted away from Star Wars. I thought the prequels had great world building, some things perfect, some things wack - but Anakin as a pissy bully who was great a punching down but rekt when punching up was something I could never un-see. It shades everything, forever.

I do feel the disappointment more now, and hope for the best with RoS...but am not holding my breath. At least fans have the The Mandelorian as an example of how Star Wars can be.

The answer is 100% the quality of the film. It is not a conspiracy, and your classification of critics as being addenda driven and out of touch is on the large scale a fiction.

But I’ve since come to feel that while I do enjoy it as a stand-alone movie, I think it did a lot of harm to the series as a whole, including the fact that it left Episode 9 in a very difficult position (apparently Ryan Johnson took the 3-movie plan that was in place and threw it directly out the window).

Because, if Force Awakens is any indication, that plan was bad.

Reading between the lines, JJ has ever-so-subtly been throwing RJ under the bus recently (saying things like “Last Jedi didn’t really derail our plans”; corporate speak for “Ive fixed things despite how badly TLJ derailed our plans).

IMO Last Jedi was the 'fix'.

You might be right, or not... it’s impossible to say. But it does seem self-evident to me that when you come up with a 3-movie plan, and all 3 films are being handled by different directors, and their production cycles overlap, you don’t want your middle movie to just throw the whole plan out.

Perhaps, if RJ has been given the entire trilogy to work with, he’d have done something better than what we’re getting. But it does seem selfish and short sighted to say “screw the franchise, I’m doing what I want to do with my movie”.

For myself, I’m going in hoping to watch a movie that looks and sounds good, but I’m utterly detached from the story at this point. This entire trilogy doesn’t, doesn’t count in my mind.

SequelTrilogy.isnotcanon.net

Hah :)

- No text -

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

If the critics didn't like it, then I will probably love it. Most "critics" nowadays just want to bloviate and sniff their own farts up on their mountain of judgement as they hand out art lessons to the plebeians down below.

They’d also probably use the world bloviate.

Properly, I presume.

The answer is 100% the quality of the film. It is not a conspiracy, and your classification of critics as being addenda driven and out of touch is on the large scale a fiction.

I never said it was a conspiracy. It’s not difficult to see how people who hold certain beliefs will enjoy media that promotes those beliefs. And, I didn’t say that the reviews aren’t based on the quality of the film. I only said that I’m not sure anymore.
And I don’t think movie reviewers are collectively agenda driven. But the content that comes out of most mainstream media outlets these days is overwhelmingly agenda driven, and most of it leans in a single direction. That, plus the fact that pre-release movie coverage is very much influenced by the studios themselves, means that a great deal of the media noise around any given hot-button film is quite detached from reality.

You could say the same thing about this film’s willingness to throw Last Jedi out. They should have rolled with it. Last Jedi solved all the problems Force Awakens created. So move forward from that!

I just re-watched Captain America: Civil War, and was reminded of how awesome it is. That, and this image also popped back into my head:

That’s an un-altered picture of Luke Skywalker on the left, and then Sebastian Stan’s face photoshopped over top of Mark Hammill’s on the right
O_o

I just re-watched Captain America: Civil War, and was reminded of how awesome it is. That, and this image also popped back into my head:

That’s an un-altered picture of Luke Skywalker on the left, and then Sebastian Stan’s face photoshopped over top of Mark Hammill’s on the right
O_o

Star Wars: The Rise of Bucky

I just re-watched Captain America: Civil War, and was reminded of how awesome it is.

The movie with no stakes, where nobody learns anything, and they are basically play fighting the whole time? It’s the exact type of movie Scorsese was dismissing when he said Marvel movies aren’t cinema.

I just re-watched Captain America: Civil War, and was reminded of how awesome it is.

The movie with no stakes, where nobody learns anything, and they are basically play fighting the whole time? It’s the exact type of movie Scorsese was dismissing when he said Marvel movies aren’t cinema.

Sure, it's not quite the stuff Scorsese does, but not everything has to be does it?

Besides the whole of Cap's character arc is the company man learning what duty really means and the sacrifices it requires. Good shit, if you ask me.

Fun fact: Cap can't wield Mjolnir until after Civil War. ;)

Yikes, I wasn't looking to start a whole "thing." I was just meaning that critics generally give low reviews to action, comedy and sci-fi/fantasy movies.

There doesn't have to be a meaning or plot to The Expendables. I understand what I'm going to see when I walk into Fast and Furious. If I walk out of a movie having "enjoyed" it, I'm good. General enjoyment doesn't seem to be a criteria most critics looks for.

- No text -

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_rise_of_skywalker

Uh oh.

If the critics didn't like it, then I will probably love it. Most "critics" nowadays just want to bloviate and sniff their own farts up on their mountain of judgement as they hand out art lessons to the plebeians down below.

I find the gap in recent years has shifted around the fact that the majority of mainstream movie reviewers are part of the hyper “woke” crowd, and the vast majority of movie goers are decidedly not. Hence the huge discrepancies we get when comparing critic reviews to viewer reviews on a great deal of films/tv shows recently. Without getting into the whole can of worms around who’s “right”, I’d say that viewing most mainstream movie reviews through that lens is a good indicator of whether or not you’ll agree with the reviews.

I find the whole Star Wars situation fascinating right now. Kathleen Kennedy went out of her way to make a big deal about how she was taking Star Wars in a “woke” direction, which the mainstream media largely loved. She leaned into this hard in the lead up to TLJ, because she and Rian Johnson were particularly aligned in their political views, and she felt she’d found the director that best fit her “vision” for Star Wars (hence the announcement that RJ was getting his own trilogy at roughly the same time that TLJ was released). Naturally, most mainstream reviewers praised TLJ, and tried to slime all the movie’s critics as being hateful, misogynistic man-babies, because apparently that’s the only possible reason to dislike the movie (eyeroll.gif). KK and RJ joined in this tactic as well, looking down their noses at the very fan base they were ostensibly in charge of pleasing. It looks to me like KK and RJ were embodying Kylo Ren’s line from Last Jedi: “Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.” They weren’t interested in pleasing Star Wars fans. They were going to make a new Star Wars, and it would attract new and better fans.

But now we’re in an interesting place. Setting aside anyone’s feelings on any of the political views going on, Star Wars is in trouble. TLJ made over $700,000,000 less than The Force Awakens, Solo flopped, merch sales are at all-time lows, and the Star Wars theme park is bleeding money. Remember, all of this comes on the back of a deal in which Disney’s own bean-counters believe they overpaid for Star Wars to begin with. With all this in mind, Disney NEEDS Rise of Skywalker to be a massive hit. And they know that another movie like TLJ won’t do it. Notice how much the marketing for Rise of Skywalker is leaning on nostalgia? When the first trailer came out, it contained more footage from the original trilogy than of the new movie. KK and RJ’s apparent plan to attract a new fan base was an absolute failure. This point is driven home further by the success of The Mandelorian, as it is being handled by a totally separate team under John Favreau. That team has found success and fan appreciation where KK and RJ have failed.

Disney NEEDS old-school Star Wars fans, but that’s no easy task considering how many of them have had their concerns dismissed and their character attacked in the past couple years. It also puts the mainstream media in a strange spot. You can see the direction that the lead-up coverage has gone. This isn’t the celebratory coverage we saw around Avengers End Game. That is telling. Movie coverage is a bit like video game coverage, where the mainstream outlets tend to talk about the things the studios want them to talk about. So most of the coverage ends up having a “state media” vibe. And with Rise of Skywalker, the sense I get from the coverage is that expectations are being reigned in. Lots of “it’s impossible to please everyone” talk, or Kathleen Kennedy’s statement about how much tougher it is to “finish” Star Wars because they don’t have books or comics to draw from (apparently she isn’t aware that there were 20+ years of Star Wars books to draw from, and her team made the decision to wipe them all out of canon). I think Disney thinks they’re in for a rough landing.

Then there are the reviews. With so many reviewers defending TLJ, what happens when Disney goes out of their way to make it clear that RoS is not going to be like TLJ? How do they react when Disney is actively trying to attract the old-school fan base that the mainstream reviewers have spent 2 years insulting? When I see such middling reviews for Rise of Skywalker, I’m not sure if it’s because the movie is mediocre, or if it is simply less “woke” than TLJ. We’re now in a situation where all signs point towards Kathleen Kennedy and her “woke” Star Wars agenda are on the way out. This could very easily turn the hyper-woke media against Star Wars. That won’t really matter to Disney IF they can make Star Wars movies that recapture the love of the fan base. I don’t think JJ knows how to do that in an ideal situation, much less following TLJ. I won’t be surprised if Rise of Skywalker ends up being the final blow that marks a sweeping “changing of the guards” within Disney and their Star Wars team.

Just a few thoughts:

• I didn't realize that the great woke divide had happened and was so pronounced... Like I'm not entirely clear on where you got those impressions about both critics and mainstream movie goers.
  
• Is there a good break down on how Disney hasn't already made back their money on Star Wars? It's obviously hard to tell without cracking open their financials, but I was under the impression they had already cracked at least 4 billion in revenue before the release of TROS. Like look here, I'm not going to get all pumped about Disney making a ton of money, they've got plenty (on top of owning a surprising amount of mainstream movies at the moment), it's just that your case for "Star Wars is in trouble" doesn't really make much sense in the grand scheme of things.
  
• You appear to be very aggrieved about people enjoying TLJ... The way you use the phrase old-school Star Wars fans is disappointing, as if you couldn't be an old school Star Wars fan and enjoy The Last Jedi, just overall this seems like a real battle for you. I'd be curious about how many "old school star wars" fans feel as insulted as you claim they've been the past 2 years.
  
• Also I didn't realize the Mandalorian was a smash hit, some people seem to enjoy it, some don't. I've been enjoying it, but I find the dialog a little undercooked and the mandalorian himself is a bit of a bore, that baby yoda though... I hope the little green blob sticks around for Season 2.
  
• You use the word "woke" in a way that just sounds like you've got a serious axe to grind.

You could say the same thing about this film’s willingness to throw Last Jedi out. They should have rolled with it. Last Jedi solved all the problems Force Awakens created. So move forward from that!

First of all, no. They couldn’t do that because as I already explained, TLJ did so much worse at the box office and pissed off so many fans that Disney couldn’t afford to move forward with it. They need to win back all the fans they alienated, and more of TLJ would not do that.

Also, I don’t know what “problems” you’re referring to. I have my complaints with both movies, but TFA sure as hell feels more true to Star Wars than TLJ does (not surprising, since TFA was a borderline remake).

Personally, I’d just like to see Star Wars in the hands of a team who understands what made it such an instant-classic to begin with. You can recreate that, and still do something “new”. Star Wars was itself a retelling of a traditional fairy tale story with a modern coat of paint. In a way, RJ and JJ made similar mistakes; they were both obsessed with “defying expectations”. JJ tends to take the approach of doing that by recreating known events but swapping characters’ positions around within them. RJ did it by taking characters that used to be a certain thing and then changing them into something else. Luke is the obvious example, but Poe is another. He is a completely different character in TLJ than he is in TFA. He goes from being the most trusted officer in the resistance to a “hot headed fly-boy who’s always thinking with his gun”.

Both TFA and TLJ smack of a lack of understanding when it comes to the source material, and what Star Wars really is.

I just re-watched Captain America: Civil War, and was reminded of how awesome it is.

The movie with no stakes, where nobody learns anything, and they are basically play fighting the whole time? It’s the exact type of movie Scorsese was dismissing when he said Marvel movies aren’t cinema.

It’s like you watched 1 fight scene and think you’ve watched the whole movie :)

The airport battle is fun, low-stakes play-fighting. At first. But that’s not how it ends, nor is it how the movie leading up to that point plays out. But that’s not actually the climax of the movie. The personal stakes during the final battle are HUGE. Not “the universe is going to end” huge. But huge nonetheless. Bucky is literally fighting for his life, Tony hits the darkest low he’s ever experienced, Steve is risking the destruction of his entire life to stand up for what he feels is right, Black Panther faces his own moral crisis, and the rest of the Avengers are caught up in a scenario where guilt and fear and duty and responsibility are all crashing into each other in ways that are messy and painful and nobody comes out feeling like a winner.

It’s not just a great action movie, it’s also a movie with fantastic character drama.

Both TFA and TLJ smack of a lack of understanding when it comes to the source material, and what Star Wars really is.

I would agree with Force Awakens. But not Last Jedi. It wasn’t about defying expectations for the sake of it. It told an achingly human and very “Star Wars” story. And what’s more it rang true. The fact that Luke grew over the course of the movie and beat Kylo in the most awesome Jedi pacifist way is a testament to that. It’s all there from the original trilogy! It’s a whole movie version of the cave on Dagobah.

Besides the whole of Cap's character arc is the company man learning what duty really means and the sacrifices it requires. Good shit, if you ask me.

This is what the film TELLS you it is about, but it is in no way about this on a textual level. It says one thing and does another.

I would say that it is what you describe on a textural level, but not on a semiotic level.

Ironically the word “woke” was co-opted by white people from BLM activists, and was never intended to mean “not racist”.

You could say the same thing about this film’s willingness to throw Last Jedi out. They should have rolled with it. Last Jedi solved all the problems Force Awakens created. So move forward from that!

First of all, no. They couldn’t do that because as I already explained, TLJ did so much worse at the box office and pissed off so many fans that Disney couldn’t afford to move forward with it. They need to win back all the fans they alienated, and more of TLJ would not do that.

I think that TLJ did about the same at the box office comparison wise as Empire Strikes Back. It's not like the middle of a trilogy traditionally rakes in more cash than the first episode of one...

You're really leaning on this narrative that TLJ bombed and i'm just thinking, usually when a movie bombs they lose money on the proposition, instead of say... making approximately a billion in profit...

- No text -

Just a few thoughts:

• I didn't realize that the great woke divide had happened and was so pronounced... Like I'm not entirely clear on where you got those impressions about both critics and mainstream movie goers.

There have been several high-profile studies on this issue in the past couple years. The general finding is that the percentage of people in America and Canada that agree with PC culture of "woke" culture is in the single digits.
As far as the prevalence of PC/woke culture in the entertainment media, if you're interested, do a quick google search for "toxic star wars fans". You'll find dozens and dozens of articles from the past 2 years, and almost nothing before that. The term was mentioned here and there following the release of TFA (because some fans said they didn't like Rey, and this was then used by certain members of the media to prove that these fans were sexist). But usage of the term really exploded after TLJ, because that was when the amount of criticism of the film from fans reached a kind of tipping point that simply couldn't be ignored. Again, at the time, I was a defender of the movie. But I still noticed that almost every article I read about TLJ made some kind of mention of the "backlash from toxic fans", as if to dislike the movie was in and of itself proof of poor character. A few reviewers and writers have made a point of calling out this issue, so I'm certainly not trying to claim that reviewers are some kind of united mass, or anything like that.

I just find that for myself, there is a kind of tipping point that we've reached that effects how I translate critic review aggregates. For example, when I see this:

that's a pretty good indicator to me that I am going to really enjoy this special.

[*]Is there a good break down on how Disney hasn't already made back their money on Star Wars? It's obviously hard to tell without cracking open their financials, but I was under the impression they had already cracked at least 4 billion in revenue before the release of TROS. Like look here, I'm not going to get all pumped about Disney making a ton of money, they've got plenty (on top of owning a surprising amount of mainstream movies at the moment), it's just that your case for "Star Wars is in trouble" doesn't really make much sense in the grand scheme of things.

It's not "my case". It's the case made by industry sites and channels that follow movie business news, combined with statements from Bob Iger himself.

George Lucas wanted more than "the Marvel Deal" for Star Wars (the Marvel deal being 4 billion dollars). But unlike Marvel at the time it was purchased, Star Wars had no movies in production, no pipeline, no major product that was on the horizon. Meaning that a lot more money would need to be spent before any money could be earned from the IP. Disney valued Star Wars at roughly 3.5 billion. But after some negotiation, Iger and his team decided that they wanted the franchise badly enough to justify overpaying.

Since then, it's not easy to say definitively how the finances balance out. But we can look at the announcements that have been made, and infer from there. We do know that TLJ made $700 million dollars less at the box office than TFA. That's a HUGE slide. We also know that Solo lost money, and was such a flop that Disney cancelled plans for all future stand-alone films that were already in production. We know the theme park is losing money. And we also know merch sales are nowhere near the hoped-for or anticipated levels. Bob Iger has made statements like along the lines of "we oversaturated the market with Star Wars" and "we may need to scale back our output". All signs point to a situation where Star Wars is not paying off for Disney the way they'd hoped.

Now, I'm a HUGE Star Wars nerd. So I follow several channels that report on Star Wars news constantly, several of which have been covering Rise of Skywalker and its production for about 9 months now. I'm inclined to believe there is at least some truth in the production issues that they cover, because the vast majority of the plot points they leaked (for RoS and previous movies) have proven to be true. Don't worry, I obviously won't get into plot spoilers here. But one of the things that has been widely covered by several outlets is that Rise of Skywalker went through insanely extensive reshoots, to the point where they were still doing minor reshoots about a month ago. These reshoots were happening because the movie wasn't scoring high enough with test audiences. And according to a couple of these outlets, JJ was basically told that "this movie needed to please everyone, so keep filming until you get it right". Again, that could all be bs, except the reshoots themselves have since been confirmed, and the plot summaries that have come out since the film appeared in theaters line up perfectly with the more recent plot leaks that were coming out of these channels.

All this to say, Disney isn't happy with Star Wars' financial performance. And while the franchise itself may not be in any danger, the creative team at the head of it certainly is. Unless RoS is a massive hit, I'd bet money that Kathleen Kennedy will "move on" to other things in the not-too-distant future.

[*]You appear to be very aggrieved about people enjoying TLJ... The way you use the phrase old-school Star Wars fans is disappointing, as if you couldn't be an old school Star Wars fan and enjoy The Last Jedi, just overall this seems like a real battle for you. I'd be curious about how many "old school star wars" fans feel as insulted as you claim they've been the past 2 years.

Not at all. I enjoyed TLJ. As I've said many times now, I defended it quite a bit when it came out, even here on these forums. But I'm not blind to the fact that a very large portion of the hardcore Star Wars fan base hates where the franchise has gone, and I'm also aware that members of the media and even some of the filmmakers themselves have tried to paint those fans in a very negative light. I take your point about my use of the term "old school fans". It clearly doesn't communicate what I was trying to communicate. I hope I'm making a bit more sense here. I don't mean to say that fans of the OT can't like TLJ or anything like that. I mean something closer to "fans who enjoy the older Star Wars films, but not the new ones".

[*]Also I didn't realize the Mandalorian was a smash hit, some people seem to enjoy it, some don't. I've been enjoying it, but I find the dialog a little undercooked and the mandalorian himself is a bit of a bore, that baby yoda though... I hope the little green blob sticks around for Season 2.

As far as the Mandelorian goes, it's getting great reviews from many of the outlets that have disliked the last few movies. I'm personally close to your position on it, from the sound of things. I like it, but I don't think it's amazing. I do love baby yoda, too :)

[*]You use the word "woke" in a way that just sounds like you've got a serious axe to grind.
[/list]

I use the word woke to describe a political leaning and/or a specific set of values. The same way I'd use terms like conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. I've been very careful to keep my own personal opinions on the whole political can of worms out of this (I'm happy to discuss it, I just don't think it actually matters with regards to the stuff I'm bringing up here).

Both TFA and TLJ smack of a lack of understanding when it comes to the source material, and what Star Wars really is.

I would agree with Force Awakens. But not Last Jedi. It wasn’t about defying expectations for the sake of it. It told an achingly human and very “Star Wars” story. And what’s more it rang true. The fact that Luke grew over the course of the movie and beat Kylo in the most awesome Jedi pacifist way is a testament to that. It’s all there from the original trilogy! It’s a whole movie version of the cave on Dagobah.

That's a gppd point, and I did really like that part of the movie too. I also thought the final message of hope at the very end was quite powerful. Really, the biggest problem I have is that both hero and anti-hero adopt the "forget the past, kill it if you have to" mentality with little or no negative repercussion. That's a pretty anti-Star Wars message. They're saying "you are already enough as you are", rather than "you could be so much more than you are". The only character who really seams to learn anything of substance is Poe, but that gets undercut by the fact that his character is so different than it was in the previous movie (it makes things jarring when viewing the whole series).

There have been several high-profile studies on this issue in the past couple years. The general finding is that the percentage of people in America and Canada that agree with PC culture of "woke" culture is in the single digits.

Don't move the goalposts or misclasify "PC culture". Way more than 9% of people believe in compassion and understanding.

that's a pretty good indicator to me that I am going to really enjoy this special.

Did you? He basically did a version of "I identify as an attack helicopter". So new, original, and insightful! 2012 called and wants its meme back.

Since then, it's not easy to say definitively how the finances balance out. But we can look at the announcements that have been made, and infer from there. We do know that TLJ made $700 million dollars less at the box office than TFA. That's a HUGE slide. We also know that Solo lost money, and was such a flop that Disney cancelled plans for all future stand-alone films that were already in production. We know the theme park is losing money. And we also know merch sales are nowhere near the hoped-for or anticipated levels. Bob Iger has made statements like along the lines of "we oversaturated the market with Star Wars" and "we may need to scale back our output". All signs point to a situation where Star Wars is not paying off for Disney the way they'd hoped.

Sounds like Activision and Destiny. :-p

But one of the things that has been widely covered by several outlets is that Rise of Skywalker went through insanely extensive reshoots, to the point where they were still doing minor reshoots about a month ago.

This is not necessarily an indication of quality. It is extremely common for large movies to do reshoots. It doesn't necessarily mean the film isn't working. Sometimes it's due to scheduling issues in getting actors. Other times it's things getting adjusted in editorial and needing a few new things to complete. If you drop a subplot for example, you may need to reshoot scenes that peripherally rely on it but otherwise have other purpose.

These reshoots were happening because the movie wasn't scoring high enough with test audiences.

JJ Abrams himself has said there were no audience test screenings. This is fake news.

ESQ: I know you just finished the movie as of last night, but has anyone seen the finished finished product yet?

JJA: Oh yeah, yeah. Sure, I mean the final final? No. I mean the truth is, I have not even gotten to see the final product. The way it works is you do the mix, you go back and forth between two different places like you’re doing the picture at the color correction place, you’re doing the sound at the mix stage, so it’s like you’re getting it in pieces, where you say “Oh that looks amazing!” but there's no sound to it. And then you go and you say “Oh that sounds incredible!" Then you’re still putting pieces together in your head, but of course I’ve shown it at a friends and family screening, but we’ve never done like a test screening.

You could say the same thing about this film’s willingness to throw Last Jedi out. They should have rolled with it. Last Jedi solved all the problems Force Awakens created. So move forward from that!

First of all, no. They couldn’t do that because as I already explained, TLJ did so much worse at the box office and pissed off so many fans that Disney couldn’t afford to move forward with it. They need to win back all the fans they alienated, and more of TLJ would not do that.

I think that TLJ did about the same at the box office comparison wise as Empire Strikes Back. It's not like the middle of a trilogy traditionally rakes in more cash than the first episode of one...

You're really leaning on this narrative that TLJ bombed and i'm just thinking, usually when a movie bombs they lose money on the proposition, instead of say... making approximately a billion in profit...

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but TLJ and Empire box office intake is not a fare comparison, because they didn't cost anywhere close to the same amount to make.

I have not said anything like "TLJ bombed". I have said several times that it made $700 million dollars less in theaters than TFA did. Any heads of any studio in charge of any franchise would look at a drop like that and worry. It didn't do poorly in a vacuum, but it didn't make the kind of money that Disney wanted it to. Remember, Star Wars is starting $500 million in the hole, as far as Disney is concerned (due to the whole "overpaying for the franchise" thing that Bob Iger discusses in his latest book). It's kinda like the whole Tomb Raider 2013 situation. The game sold very well (2 million units, I think?) but Square Enix had created such a financial mess around the game that they needed it to sell ~4 million for it to be considered successful. It's a crazy burden to put on any movie. But that's the situation Star Wars is in right now. Solo did bomb, so that made things worse.

I have not said anything like "TLJ bombed". I have said several times that it made $700 million dollars less in theaters than TFA did. Any heads of any studio in charge of any franchise would look at a drop like that and worry. It didn't do poorly in a vacuum, but it didn't make the kind of money that Disney wanted it to. Remember, Star Wars is starting $500 million in the hole, as far as Disney is concerned (due to the whole "overpaying for the franchise" thing that Bob Iger discusses in his latest book). It's kinda like the whole Tomb Raider 2013 situation. The game sold very well (2 million units, I think?) but Square Enix had created such a financial mess around the game that they needed it to sell ~4 million for it to be considered successful. It's a crazy burden to put on any movie. But that's the situation Star Wars is in right now. Solo did bomb, so that made things worse.

Box office is not the only way a franchise makes money. Even beyond streaming, physical media, and TV, you can make toys and video games and books and shit.

These reshoots were happening because the movie wasn't scoring high enough with test audiences.

JJ Abrams himself has said there were no audience test screenings. This is fake news.

ESQ: I know you just finished the movie as of last night, but has anyone seen the finished finished product yet?

JJA: Oh yeah, yeah. Sure, I mean the final final? No. I mean the truth is, I have not even gotten to see the final product. The way it works is you do the mix, you go back and forth between two different places like you’re doing the picture at the color correction place, you’re doing the sound at the mix stage, so it’s like you’re getting it in pieces, where you say “Oh that looks amazing!” but there's no sound to it. And then you go and you say “Oh that sounds incredible!" Then you’re still putting pieces together in your head, but of course I’ve shown it at a friends and family screening, but we’ve never done like a test screening.

JJ has lied to the media before about his own movies, so I don't trust anything he says about Rise of Skywalker, especially pre-release.

As I said earlier, these reports of reshoots and test screenings are coming from the same couple sources who have provided entire plot summaries (regularly updated to reflect the most recent edits), and those plot summaries are looking to be damn near perfect. So I lean in the direction of believing them.

I have not said anything like "TLJ bombed". I have said several times that it made $700 million dollars less in theaters than TFA did. Any heads of any studio in charge of any franchise would look at a drop like that and worry. It didn't do poorly in a vacuum, but it didn't make the kind of money that Disney wanted it to. Remember, Star Wars is starting $500 million in the hole, as far as Disney is concerned (due to the whole "overpaying for the franchise" thing that Bob Iger discusses in his latest book). It's kinda like the whole Tomb Raider 2013 situation. The game sold very well (2 million units, I think?) but Square Enix had created such a financial mess around the game that they needed it to sell ~4 million for it to be considered successful. It's a crazy burden to put on any movie. But that's the situation Star Wars is in right now. Solo did bomb, so that made things worse.

Box office is not the only way a franchise makes money. Even beyond streaming, physical media, and TV, you can make toys and video games and books and shit.

Yeah, he's just saying that they're all struggling. But I haven't seen anything aside from passing comments that they're not doing well. Like I'm not even sure they're struggling yet, so I'm not even where I could be convinced that they've had to scramble based on what I thought was a vocal minority that disliked TLJ.= had to say.

Box office is not the only way a franchise makes money. Even beyond streaming, physical media, and TV, you can make toys and video games and books and shit.

I have not said anything like "TLJ bombed". I have said several times that it made $700 million dollars less in theaters than TFA did. Any heads of any studio in charge of any franchise would look at a drop like that and worry. It didn't do poorly in a vacuum, but it didn't make the kind of money that Disney wanted it to. Remember, Star Wars is starting $500 million in the hole, as far as Disney is concerned (due to the whole "overpaying for the franchise" thing that Bob Iger discusses in his latest book). It's kinda like the whole Tomb Raider 2013 situation. The game sold very well (2 million units, I think?) but Square Enix had created such a financial mess around the game that they needed it to sell ~4 million for it to be considered successful. It's a crazy burden to put on any movie. But that's the situation Star Wars is in right now. Solo did bomb, so that made things worse.

Box office is not the only way a franchise makes money. Even beyond streaming, physical media, and TV, you can make toys and video games and books and shit.

Yeah, he's just saying that they're all struggling. But I haven't seen anything aside from passing comments that they're not doing well. Like I'm not even sure they're struggling yet, so I'm not even where I could be convinced that they've had to scramble based on what I thought was a vocal minority that disliked TLJ.= had to say.

I don’t know why you assume it’s a minority? $700 million less than TFA is a lot of tickets that didn’t sell.

I would say that it is what you describe on a textural level, but not on a semiotic level.

And this, right here, is why I stopped giving a shit about what critics say.

How many friggin' levels do I have to juggle to view a movie properly?

Never mind, don't answer that. My head already hurts.

How many friggin' levels do I have to juggle to view a movie properly?

One.

If someone always tells you they are dependable and that you can count on them, yet always seems to drop the ball every time you give them a responsibility, what kind of person are they?

It doesn't matter what they say, it matters what they do. So judge a movie by what it actually is and not by what it says it is.

This is what the film TELLS you it is about, but it is in no way about this on a textual level. It says one thing and does another.

But when I watched Civil War for the first time it was with everything that had happened with Cap and Tony starting with Avengers. Their conflict began on the hellicarrier right before Hulk went nuts.

Rogers: "I know guys with none of that worth ten of you. I've seen the footage. The only thing you really fight for is yourself. You're not the guy to make the sacrifice play, to lay down on a wire and let the other guy crawl over you!"

Stark: "I think I'd just cut the wire."

Rogers: "Always a way out. You know, you may not be a threat, but you'd better stop pretending to be a hero."

Tony: "A hero? Like you? You're a lab experiment, Rogers. Everything special about you came out of a bottle."

An argument which, not incidentally, Cap won in Endgame.

So when I watch Civil War I'm seeing their previous choices playing out. How do you think it's just being told to you?

Ren is shown to have embraced killing the past. It makes him worse and Rey definitely does not accept it, the closest she gets to it is accepting that maybe her past isn’t as important as her future - but she took the sacred texts. And Poe literally had “get in over his head, but is a very good pilot” as his entire character arc in TFA, minus a thirsty lip bite for how good Fynn looked in his jacket; so everything he does in TLJ is completely in line with that characterization.

There is not a single arc in TLJ that doesn’t follow the characters prior appearances in a very myth-based and Star Wars-y fashion.

I would say that it is what you describe on a textural level, but not on a semiotic level.

And this, right here, is why I stopped giving a shit about what critics say.

How many friggin' levels do I have to juggle to view a movie properly?

Never mind, don't answer that. My head already hurts.

Agreed.

I enjoy seeing what people have to say but at the end of the day if I'm interested I'll see it for myself. As far as The Rise of Skywalker goes the Last Jedi didn't really sit well with me. I'll wait and see for now.

This whole Marvel tangent makes me realize that while my parents had Star Wars and sat me down when I was young to watch the original trilogy I'd be showing my kids the Marvel stuff.

Probably need to have them call of school for a week though. Haha.

So when I watch Civil War I'm seeing their previous choices playing out. How do you think it's just being told to you?

Because it is all posturing and surface level. Neither of those characters behave or are affected by this 'conflict' in a substantial way. They do not change or evolve. They play out the action of conflict but it does not resonate on a character level. The end of the movie is exactly the same as the beginning.

How many friggin' levels do I have to juggle to view a movie properly?

One.

If someone always tells you they are dependable and that you can count on them, yet always seems to drop the ball every time you give them a responsibility, what kind of person are they?

It doesn't matter what they say, it matters what they do. So judge a movie by what it actually is and not by what it says it is.

I don't care what it says it is. I don't care what it ACTUALLY is. I care how much it entertains me.

The idea that someone would suggest to you why they thought a movie was great, and that you would respond with "that's what it is on a textural level, but not a semiotic level" makes my eyes bug out. I don't care at all what the texture is. Or the semiotics. Only on how they affect me, after watching the movie. You can tell me I got it all wrong, but I still loved it (or hated it, or was meh about it). I don't CARE that I got it all wrong... because it's a movie. I go to movies to be entertained. Moved, even. If I was moved, it was successful. Period.

Statements like yours remind me why bananas taped to a wall with duct tape can sell for $120k.

I don't care what it says it is. I don't care what it ACTUALLY is. I care how much it entertains me.

It is in effect lying to you. The fact that it still entertains people is a testament to the power of getting the surface level details right. But I think that may be delightful, yet fleeting.

If I tell you a fable, which seems to suggest the opposite lesson of what it's supposed to be about, that's fine simply because it's entertaining?

- No text -

I don't care what it says it is. I don't care what it ACTUALLY is. I care how much it entertains me.

It is in effect lying to you. The fact that it still entertains people is a testament to the power of getting the surface level details right. But I think that may be delightful, but fleeting.

Okay, sure. (I don't know if we're talking about a specific movie any more, or just movies in general; I'd moved away from Civil War in my head, but maybe you didn't. Doesn't really matter, for the purposes of this post.)

Here's the thing. Movies that are deep, that point out a little-understood universal truth or succinctly describe a thorny topic that humans debate regularly without coming to a consensus - these movies stick with me. (I think they probably stick with most of us.) Movies that are glitzy, or glamorous but shallow, or lying to the audience in more than a superficial way... those don't stick with me (or, again, probably with most of us). But at the end of the day, they're both 2 hours long, and they both cost $15 (or whatever we're paying these days). And they can both be entertaining in the moment, and enjoyable to visit, and worth the $15 (or whatever). And while I'm 100% positive that there are deep movies that went right over my head, or shallow ones that hit a nerve, in the end I'm okay either way - I either enjoyed the 2 hours in the theater, or I didn't. And no amount of telling me about the layers I need to consider to really APPRECIATE what I watched are going to make any difference at all, to me.

Movies are one of the very few places on this planet where I'm okay being lied to.

So when I watch Civil War I'm seeing their previous choices playing out. How do you think it's just being told to you?

Because it is all posturing and surface level. Neither of those characters behave or are affected by this 'conflict' in a substantial way. They do not change or evolve. They play out the action of conflict but it does not resonate on a character level. The end of the movie is exactly the same as the beginning.

I think I see what you're saying and suspect you may be right... right up until Cap drops the shields and leaves Tony wallowing in his failure.

Cap doesn't just spring his squad from jail but realizes he didn't live up to his own principles and apologizes to Tony about him knowing about Tony's parents. Tony meanwhile is clearly licking his wounds, a thing he's not prone to do.

Too little too late, perhaps. I'd have to ponder your point more.

Having a stop sign presented to you and you understanding a stop sign are two very different things.

That’s without even addressing Wanda, Vision, or Rhodey in the context of the airport battle, Nat’s turn at the end, or how that influences T’Challa and his resulting response to the preceding events.

I don’t know why you assume it’s a minority? $700 million less than TFA is a lot of tickets that didn’t sell.

The Last Jedi also wasn't the first Star Wars movie in a decade. It was the third Star Wars movie in two years. It was never going to make as much money as The Force Awakens. $700 million is a big difference, but it still made over a billion fucking dollars. Money counting executives don't ever seem to be a realistic judge of their product, but expecting The Last Jedi to make as much money as The Force Awakens seems like a stupid expectation to begin with.

I don’t know why you assume it’s a minority? $700 million less than TFA is a lot of tickets that didn’t sell.

The Last Jedi also wasn't the first Star Wars movie in a decade. It was the third Star Wars movie in two years. It was never going to make as much money as The Force Awakens. $700 million is a big difference, but it still made over a billion fucking dollars. Money counting executives don't ever seem to be a realistic judge of their product, but expecting The Last Jedi to make as much money as The Force Awakens seems like a stupid expectation to begin with.

I agree. I also don’t know or think they necessarily expecting it to make the same amount of money. But I know a $700 million dollar slide is huge, and probably far worse than anyone expected.

I don't care what it says it is. I don't care what it ACTUALLY is. I care how much it entertains me.

It is in effect lying to you. The fact that it still entertains people is a testament to the power of getting the surface level details right. But I think that may be delightful, yet fleeting.

If I tell you a fable, which seems to suggest the opposite lesson of what it's supposed to be about, that's fine simply because it's entertaining?

As I know you are a fan of The Room, I'll say this, from my point of view. I enjoyed The Room just as much as Shawshank Redemption. Both for completely different reasons. But as far as enjoyment goes? They are both the same.

- No text -

I don't care what it says it is. I don't care what it ACTUALLY is. I care how much it entertains me.

It is in effect lying to you. The fact that it still entertains people is a testament to the power of getting the surface level details right. But I think that may be delightful, yet fleeting.

If I tell you a fable, which seems to suggest the opposite lesson of what it's supposed to be about, that's fine simply because it's entertaining?

As I know you are a fan of The Room, I'll say this, from my point of view. I enjoyed The Room just as much as Shawshank Redemption. Both for completely different reasons. But as far as enjoyment goes? They are both the same.

The Room isn’t lying to you.

I don’t know why you assume it’s a minority? $700 million less than TFA is a lot of tickets that didn’t sell.

The Last Jedi also wasn't the first Star Wars movie in a decade. It was the third Star Wars movie in two years. It was never going to make as much money as The Force Awakens. $700 million is a big difference, but it still made over a billion fucking dollars. Money counting executives don't ever seem to be a realistic judge of their product, but expecting The Last Jedi to make as much money as The Force Awakens seems like a stupid expectation to begin with.

I saw TFA in theatres three or four times. I saw TLJ in theatres once.

Might be on to something with that whole first Star Wars in a decade thing.

Of all the claims to make.

- No text -

What does it say about me that I’m actually more interested in watching it now than I was before reading those reviews? lol

- No text -

I would say that it is what you describe on a textural level, but not on a semiotic level.

And this, right here, is why I stopped giving a shit about what critics say.

How many friggin' levels do I have to juggle to view a movie properly?

Never mind, don't answer that. My head already hurts.

Agreed.

I enjoy seeing what people have to say but at the end of the day if I'm interested I'll see it for myself. As far as The Rise of Skywalker goes the Last Jedi didn't really sit well with me. I'll wait and see for now.

This whole Marvel tangent makes me realize that while my parents had Star Wars and sat me down when I was young to watch the original trilogy I'd be showing my kids the Marvel stuff.

Probably need to have them call of school for a week though. Haha.

My daughter is just getting to the age where I feel comfortable having her watch some of the Marvel films, and my first thought when I sat down to figure it out was “holy crap, this is going to be expensive.”

But then Disney+ came out. Problem solved! :)

There have been several high-profile studies on this issue in the past couple years. The general finding is that the percentage of people in America and Canada that agree with PC culture of "woke" culture is in the single digits.

Don't move the goalposts or misclasify "PC culture". Way more than 9% of people believe in compassion and understanding.

Talk about moving the goal posts!

Of course more people than that believe in compassion and understanding. That ISN’T what PC culture is. PC culture is is essentially just another puritanical authoritarianism that tries to dictate what people are allowed to say or think, under the guise of compassion and decency. So the people pushing their authoritarian doctrines get to feel morally superior while they do it, with very little effort. It’s just another form of religious-level group compulsion. It’s also blatantly unhelpful, even by its own standards. Who says that being shielded from offence actually helps anyone? All the clinical literature on the subject shows that it only pushes people towards being more emotionally brittle and fragile. Some of the most important and meaningful things that have ever been said to me were things that offended me in the moment.

More simply, it’s along the lines of how Bill Mahar describes it: Being politically correct is being compelled to lie in order to avoid hurting some hypothetical person’s hypothetical feelings. And in a world as interconnected as ours, that basically leads to a situation where you can’t say anything about an important topic, because when you’re talking to the whole world, you’re bound to offend someone, somewhere. I am NOT advocating for people to go around being purposefully hurtful. I AM saying that any steps we take to eradicate the possibility of people being mean or hurtful will actually cause more harm than the people saying mean things. Should we push back against people who are hurtful on purpose? Of course. Make it illegal? Absolutely not (and if you don’t think that PC culture is trying to do the latter, you need to read more).

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a kind, compassionate person. I put a lot of thought, energy, and focus into doing the right thing, helping those around me, and bringing as much good into the world as possible. And after years of careful thought and work and practice, I’ve come to the conclusion that for me to be a good person, I can never lie. I mean that literally. I will never say something I don’t believe to be true. I’ll make mistakes, I’ll get things wrong, and I’ll learn and grow and adjust in the process. So when proponents of PC culture come along and start trying to tell me “these are the things you can and cannot say”, I’ll politely tell them to go to hell. I’ll be responsible for my own thoughts and words, thank you very much. And I certainly won’t be lectured to about how to be good to people by some 20-year-old undergrads who barely know anything about how to take care of themselves, much less how to be good to others. Grow up, live your life, gain some experience, then come have a conversation with me. I will always be up for talking, sharing points of view, and arguing ideas. But I will not be lectured to, especially by people who have not proven themselves deserving of moral authority in any way, shape or form.

that's a pretty good indicator to me that I am going to really enjoy this special.

Did you? He basically did a version of "I identify as an attack helicopter". So new, original, and insightful! 2012 called and wants its meme back.

It’s also more and more relevant, particularly where I live. Do some reading on what’s happening with the laws up here. Things are going crazy, and it’s starting to undo a lot of the good work that has been done in the past 30 years to help people who need it.

As far as the special overall, I thought it was hilarious. I wouldn’t score it at 99%, but I’d rate it closer to that end of the scale than the critic score.

Of course more people than that believe in compassion and understanding. That ISN’T what PC culture is. PC culture is is essentially just another puritanical authoritarianism that tries to dictate what people are allowed to say or think, under the guise of compassion and decency.

This is a malicious characterization of it. PC culture is simply "don't be an asshole" culture.

So the people pushing their authoritarian doctrines get to feel morally superior while they do it, with very little effort. It’s just another form of religious-level group compulsion. It’s also blatantly unhelpful, even by its own standards.

There is nothing unhelpful about being being understanding and kind.

Make it illegal? Absolutely not (and if you don’t think that PC culture is trying to do the latter, you need to read more).

Nobody is trying to do this in the United States. I understand this IS a problem in Canada (see for instance Mark Steyn), but we have the first amendment and changing it would be unthinkable by pretty much everyone.

What does it say about me that I’m actually more interested in watching it now than I was before reading those reviews? lol

It means you've probably got some blotter tabs lying around you need an excuse to use.

What does it say about me that I’m actually more interested in watching it now than I was before reading those reviews? lol

It means you've probably got some blotter tabs lying around you need an excuse to use.

Or you are already on the FBI watch list and you just don't care?

- No text -

Of course more people than that believe in compassion and understanding. That ISN’T what PC culture is. PC culture is is essentially just another puritanical authoritarianism that tries to dictate what people are allowed to say or think, under the guise of compassion and decency.

This is a malicious characterization of it. PC culture is simply "don't be an asshole" culture.

I think that's a simplistic and benign characterization of it. Much depends on how you define "asshole," and many define it as anyone who disagrees, and then feel justified being an asshole to the "asshole."

So the people pushing their authoritarian doctrines get to feel morally superior while they do it, with very little effort. It’s just another form of religious-level group compulsion. It’s also blatantly unhelpful, even by its own standards.

There is nothing unhelpful about being being understanding and kind.

You assume perfect knowledge of what's needed and of outcomes.

Make it illegal? Absolutely not (and if you don’t think that PC culture is trying to do the latter, you need to read more).

Nobody is trying to do this in the United States. I understand this IS a problem in Canada (see for instance Mark Steyn), but we have the first amendment and changing it would be unthinkable by pretty much everyone.

I think hate crime legislation is a step in that direction, combined with the trend to equate speech with violence. There are plenty of people here who at least want to hobble the first amendment by practice if not by statute. Think of how often you see "free speech" in scare quotes. When I was your age, censorship was a dirty word. I don't think it is anymore.

- No text -

But then Disney+ came out. Problem solved! :)

Illuminati confirmed. Hail Hydra!

I think that's a simplistic and benign characterization of it. Much depends on how you define "asshole," and many define it as anyone who disagrees, and then feel justified being an asshole to the "asshole."

People championing Wheaton's Law as some kind of universal moral good absolutely infuriates me. It simply gets leveled at anything they don't like. Hell, the quickest way for me to be a dick is tell me NOT to be one. :D

But anyway, if you're an asshole be the absolute best asshole you can be. At least I'll know what I'm dealing with and we can get along anyway.

Nobody is trying to do this in the United States. I understand this IS a problem in Canada (see for instance Mark Steyn), but we have the first amendment and changing it would be unthinkable by pretty much everyone.

Don't think it can't happen here. It's just not as overt.

Just ask anyone who doesn't have a "mainstream" opinion.

I don’t know why you assume it’s a minority? $700 million less than TFA is a lot of tickets that didn’t sell.

If I'm a stockholder and something earned that much less than I expected I'd be pissed.

Sure, it might be doing OK, but I'm Wall St. You're a failure.

Nobody is trying to do this in the United States. I understand this IS a problem in Canada (see for instance Mark Steyn), but we have the first amendment and changing it would be unthinkable by pretty much everyone.

Don't think it can't happen here. It's just not as overt.

Just ask anyone who doesn't have a "mainstream" opinion.

Oh please. Being told to shut up because your opinion sucks isn’t even remotely the same thing as changing the first amendment.

Speech can absolutely be violence, as far as I’m concerned. Someone telling other people that whatever group should be killed (or deported, or jailed, or whatever) is as good as pulling the trigger, especially if that someone has a massive platform with thousands of deranged followers.

I do not subscribe to the words are just words, marketplace of ideas horseshit. Punch Nazis right in the fucking mouth, forever and always.

And as someone with a lot of “non-mainstream” opinions - though based solidly in compassion and empathy - it is uncommon that anyone tries to silence them. So you have to be more particular about what content those opinions hold.

Oh please. Being told to shut up because your opinion sucks isn’t even remotely the same thing as changing the first amendment.

That's not what I'm talking about at all.

I know politics is verboten on this forum, so I'll only bring it up slightly in order to hopefully illustrate my point. In the United States it's fair to say, on the left/right political spectrum, we have a center right party and one a little more right than that. If you're outside that system you're essentially disenfranchised politically.

It's not even a hard thing like law. It's a soft thing - you don't get interviewed, you don't get talked to, no one cares. You can see this with how much trouble third parties have.

So to get back to Cody's point the erosion of our First Amendment rights doesn't have to be a frontal assault. In fact, that sort of thing never is. It's all baby steps until few even realized it's happened.

Speech can absolutely be violence, as far as I’m concerned. Someone telling other people that whatever group should be killed (or deported, or jailed, or whatever) is as good as pulling the trigger, especially if that someone has a massive platform with thousands of deranged followers.

You're talking about calls for violence. That already is illegal. But that absolutely is not the same as saying speech is violence.

I do not subscribe to the words are just words, marketplace of ideas horseshit. Punch Nazis right in the fucking mouth, forever and always.

NO. This isn't the Weimar Republic. We have free speech so we don't have to punch people (and so we can know the idiots by their speech). You scare me, dude. You complain about people who call for violence, and then you freaking do it. Sigh.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/09/23/why-you-shouldn-punch-nazi/sjghT8vcvVkpbJWMiOrEqN/story.html

Yeah, you’re right. We’re so much better here. We just let cops murder minorities in the streets, but at least Nazis are free to be Nazis!

I absolutely advocate for violence against those who look at others as subhumans. Punch them straight back into their fucking holes.

Speech can absolutely be violence, as far as I’m concerned. Someone telling other people that whatever group should be killed (or deported, or jailed, or whatever) is as good as pulling the trigger, especially if that someone has a massive platform with thousands of deranged followers.

I do not subscribe to the words are just words, marketplace of ideas horseshit. Punch Nazis right in the fucking mouth, forever and always.

Free speech is an absolute right or it's not one at all. Speech is many things, but it isn't violence.

Punching a Nazi is also not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, you’re right. We’re so much better here. We just let cops murder minorities in the streets, but at least Nazis are free to be Nazis!

I absolutely advocate for violence against those who look at others as subhumans. Punch them straight back into their fucking holes.

Punishment comes after the crime, bro.

And as someone with a lot of “non-mainstream” opinions - though based solidly in compassion and empathy - it is uncommon that anyone tries to silence them. So you have to be more particular about what content those opinions hold.

We're dancing around this with abstractions because this isn't a political forum, but I believe you when you say your "non-mainstream" are based solidly on compassion and empathy. I'm willing to bet that someone who disagrees with you would say the same about their opinions, and it's possible for both of you to be be right because you framing the issue differently. You may say it's obvious that A should help B, but someone else might say, if A helps B, what happens when A can't help B, or that help leads to C, which is worse than the status quo. Maybe there's a different way to help B.

And as someone with a lot of “non-mainstream” opinions - though based solidly in compassion and empathy - it is uncommon that anyone tries to silence them. So you have to be more particular about what content those opinions hold.

We're dancing around this with abstractions because this isn't a political forum, but I believe you when you say your "non-mainstream" are based solidly on compassion and empathy. I'm willing to bet that someone who disagrees with you would say the same about their opinions, and it's possible for both of you to be be right because you framing the issue differently. You may say it's obvious that A should help B, but someone else might say, if A helps B, what happens when A can't help B, or that help leads to C, which is worse than the status quo. Maybe there's a different way to help B.

Furthermore we're just talking about it. Unless one of you knock down my door and try to enforce your vision of life on me we're good. Haha!

Nobody is trying to do this in the United States. I understand this IS a problem in Canada (see for instance Mark Steyn), but we have the first amendment and changing it would be unthinkable by pretty much everyone.

Don't think it can't happen here. It's just not as overt.

Just ask anyone who doesn't have a "mainstream" opinion.

Oh please. Being told to shut up because your opinion sucks isn’t even remotely the same thing as changing the first amendment.

It's not changing the first amendment, but it's not acting in the spirit of the first amendment. There's the law, and there's the cultural norm. Where the latter goes, the former soon follows.

And as someone with a lot of “non-mainstream” opinions - though based solidly in compassion and empathy - it is uncommon that anyone tries to silence them. So you have to be more particular about what content those opinions hold.

We're dancing around this with abstractions because this isn't a political forum, but I believe you when you say your "non-mainstream" are based solidly on compassion and empathy. I'm willing to bet that someone who disagrees with you would say the same about their opinions, and it's possible for both of you to be be right because you framing the issue differently. You may say it's obvious that A should help B, but someone else might say, if A helps B, what happens when A can't help B, or that help leads to C, which is worse than the status quo. Maybe there's a different way to help B.

Furthermore we're just talking about it. Unless one of you knock down my door and try to enforce your vision of life on me we're good. Haha!

BOOM. POLICE!!!! GET DOWN ON THE GROUND!!! NOW STOP PLAYING VANQUISH LIKE A COVER SHOOTER!!!

- No text -

If Cody were king...

...Vanquish would run on time!

Is that how it goes? Didn't it end poorly for that guy? Hmm...

(lol)

I live in fear of people that say things like you did. Today it's Nazi's. But tomorrow? Christians? Muslims? It is my strong belief that my religion will see me arrested or harmed within my lifetime. And, who draws the lines on who it is acceptable to punch? My line is: It is not acceptable to punish anyone until they commit a crime.

One of my favorite ideas about how to deal with bad speech says that you deal with bad speech not with violence but with good speech. People may say things you don't like. You're allowed to say things they don't like. So get together and organize so much good speech that you drown out the people with bad ideas. But you are not allowed to touch anyone. Once you do that, you're the bad guy.

That doesn't mean all speech is acceptable. But even the kinds that are not acceptable (inciting violence, causing a panic, etc) must rise to a extremely high bar or somebody (maybe it's you, maybe it's me!) will use something that the other person says to arrest or harm them unjustly.

Speech can absolutely be violence, as far as I’m concerned. Someone telling other people that whatever group should be killed (or deported, or jailed, or whatever) is as good as pulling the trigger, especially if that someone has a massive platform with thousands of deranged followers.

You're talking about calls for violence. That already is illegal. But that absolutely is not the same as saying speech is violence.

Calls for violence, and inciting violence aren’t one and the same. I’d hope you can understand nuance, and deliberately worded language that can lead to violence. It’s very much a real thing. I’m glad that you’ve lived a privileged enough life to not see those things happening first-hand though. But don’t let that make you assume that it’s not a real thing.

I do not subscribe to the words are just words, marketplace of ideas horseshit. Punch Nazis right in the fucking mouth, forever and always.

NO. This isn't the Weimar Republic. We have free speech so we don't have to punch people (and so we can know the idiots by their speech). You scare me, dude. You complain about people who call for violence, and then you freaking do it. Sigh.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/09/23/why-you-shouldn-punch-nazi/sjghT8vcvVkpbJWMiOrEqN/story.html

Never thought I’d see Kermit defending Nazis on our very forum...
... and yet...

inb4 thread locked.

inb4 thread locked.

I just wanted to shit on Star Wars… come on guys!

inb4 thread locked.

I just wanted to shit on Star Wars… come on guys!

Well that's easy, we can just talk about The Mandalorian.

Speech can absolutely be violence, as far as I’m concerned. Someone telling other people that whatever group should be killed (or deported, or jailed, or whatever) is as good as pulling the trigger, especially if that someone has a massive platform with thousands of deranged followers.

You're talking about calls for violence. That already is illegal. But that absolutely is not the same as saying speech is violence.

Calls for violence, and inciting violence aren’t one and the same. I’d hope you can understand nuance, and deliberately worded language that can lead to violence. It’s very much a real thing. I’m glad that you’ve lived a privileged enough life to not see those things happening first-hand though. But don’t let that make you assume that it’s not a real thing.

Because I do understand nuance I said calls for violence and not "deliberately worded language that can lead to violence," which is the kind of slippery language people use when they want to shut you up because you have a different opinion about medicare for all.

I do not subscribe to the words are just words, marketplace of ideas horseshit. Punch Nazis right in the fucking mouth, forever and always.

NO. This isn't the Weimar Republic. We have free speech so we don't have to punch people (and so we can know the idiots by their speech). You scare me, dude. You complain about people who call for violence, and then you freaking do it. Sigh.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/09/23/why-you-shouldn-punch-nazi/sjghT8vcvVkpbJWMiOrEqN/story.html

Never thought I’d see Kermit defending Nazis on our very forum...
... and yet...

inb4 thread locked.

I'm defending free speech exactly how the ACLU defended free speech until they abandoned their principles a few years ago. You know damn well I'm not defending Nazis, and I'm offended that you'd even joke that I would. I'd ask for an apology but I know that's not your style. Hell, I'll probably get banned again because of your bullshit.

This is the problem we have to contend with.

Self defense occurs during an assault.

- No text -

The spirit of the 1A isn’t between private citizens.

Now where is that baby Yoda parents fighting meme from like 3 weeks ago.

- No text -

Self defense occurs during an assault.

Speech isn’t a physical assault, though. It just isn’t. The concept of free speech is one of the great accomplishments of western jurisprudence, and it seems you want to casually toss it out the window.

Sure. But I don't advocate total tolerance. We still have laws and a justice system and trials and jails and the death penalty. I'm even for laying down fair, due process based punishments for extreme speech as long as a massively high bar is maintained. Walking up and punching someone for any speech is never ok, though. We should be a just country of laws... not one that condones harming people just because you disagree with them.

Speech can absolutely be violence, as far as I’m concerned. Someone telling other people that whatever group should be killed (or deported, or jailed, or whatever) is as good as pulling the trigger, especially if that someone has a massive platform with thousands of deranged followers.

You're talking about calls for violence. That already is illegal. But that absolutely is not the same as saying speech is violence.

Calls for violence, and inciting violence aren’t one and the same. I’d hope you can understand nuance, and deliberately worded language that can lead to violence. It’s very much a real thing. I’m glad that you’ve lived a privileged enough life to not see those things happening first-hand though. But don’t let that make you assume that it’s not a real thing.

Because I do understand nuance I said calls for violence and not "deliberately worded language that can lead to violence," which is the kind of slippery language people use when they want to shut you up because you have a different opinion about medicare for all.

You seem overly defensive about this. I’m just saying that speech can totally lead to violence, and while we should champion the first amendment, we as a people should use the power of common sense to say that there are things we should not accept, without bringing government into the conversation. Civil society and all that.

I do not subscribe to the words are just words, marketplace of ideas horseshit. Punch Nazis right in the fucking mouth, forever and always.

NO. This isn't the Weimar Republic. We have free speech so we don't have to punch people (and so we can know the idiots by their speech). You scare me, dude. You complain about people who call for violence, and then you freaking do it. Sigh.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/09/23/why-you-shouldn-punch-nazi/sjghT8vcvVkpbJWMiOrEqN/story.html

Never thought I’d see Kermit defending Nazis on our very forum...
... and yet...

inb4 thread locked.

I'm defending free speech exactly how the ACLU defended free speech until they abandoned their principles a few years ago. You know damn well I'm not defending Nazis, and I'm offended that you'd even joke that I would. I'd ask for an apology but I know that's not your style. Hell, I'll probably get banned again because of your bullshit.

Kind of weird how folks are saying that Nazis are bad, and rather than acknowledging that, you randomly turn the ACLU into the bad guys. Hmm.
Anyway, I don’t subscribe to the “good people on both sides” mentality. There is a clear line between “these people hold this unpopular opinion”, and “these people are racists, and dangerous”. White supremacy is evil; we should NOT tolerate it. Neo Nazis are evil. We as a society that has had plenty of history to learn from, should not tolerate it. It should not be allowed to fester and grow unchecked. Those people should not feel emboldened to spread their vitriol. That line of thinking should be stamped out, because it has been spreading (clearly). And it’s not always so obvious. The below-the surface spread of it is what has led the supposedly pro-life crowd to tolerate (and justify) children dying in cages, causes them to turn the other way when injustices are happening, and causes them to see stuff like kneeling in protest as a bad thing that they want to see stopped (funny how the first amendment suddenly doesn’t matter then, huh?)

Anyway, you know I’ve always been respectful of people who don’t share my perspective, but even so, I think it’s important that we don’t ever defend Nazis, and I don’t think that’s something that anyone would disagree with, because it’s not a “slippery slope” for censorship, it’s stopping evil, and I won’t ever apologize for that. You agree that Nazis and white supremacists are completely, invariably, and irredeemably evil, right?

I support the message you were trying to present and I feel bad that Korny has targeted you with so many back to back misrepresentations of what I think you believe and stand for. I'd suggest simply not responding. But whether you do or not, just know that at least someone out there or around here does appreciate your values for what they really are.

I think it’s important that we don’t ever defend Nazis, and I don’t think that’s something that anyone would disagree with, because it’s not a “slippery slope” for censorship, it’s stopping evil, and I won’t ever apologize for that.

Nobody's defending Nazis. What Kermit is defending is their right, in this country, to free speech. And he's right - it should be defended. Even though they're undeniably evil.

I think it’s important that we don’t ever defend Nazis, and I don’t think that’s something that anyone would disagree with, because it’s not a “slippery slope” for censorship, it’s stopping evil, and I won’t ever apologize for that.

Nobody's defending Nazis. What Kermit is defending is their right, in this country, to free speech. And he's right - it should be defended. Even though they're undeniably evil.

I thought the whole point about them in this Star Wars thread was in regards to their free speech. Which yes, is clearly being defended. Of course I would never imply that Kermit is defending their ideals. That said, this topic is no place for Kermit’s patented Whataboutisms, which he straddles even here.

And I am infinitely more proud of Cats. This is peak entertainment.

“He hates Nazis, he’s coming for Christians next!” might actually be the stupidest leap in logic I’ve ever seen.

Call me crazy.

- No text -

Self defense occurs during an assault.

Speech isn’t a physical assault, though. It just isn’t. The concept of free speech is one of the great accomplishments of western jurisprudence, and it seems you want to casually toss it out the window.

Self defense also isn't the same thing as punishment by the state or the vigilantism of a mob.

“He hates Nazis, he’s coming for Christians next!” might actually be the stupidest leap in logic I’ve ever seen.

The idea free speech isn't violence is such a good one because people are famously incapable of where to draw the line.

I mean, what do you do when someone decides you're right about this issue, then sucker punches you and beats you to death before you get to them first?

Oops.

I think it’s important that we don’t ever defend Nazis, and I don’t think that’s something that anyone would disagree with, because it’s not a “slippery slope” for censorship, it’s stopping evil, and I won’t ever apologize for that.

Nobody's defending Nazis. What Kermit is defending is their right, in this country, to free speech. And he's right - it should be defended. Even though they're undeniably evil.

I thought the whole point about them in this Star Wars thread was in regards to their free speech. Which yes, is clearly being defended. Of course I would never imply that Kermit is defending their ideals. That said, this topic is no place for Kermit’s patented Whataboutisms, which he straddles even here.

Our position is simple.

Free speech is an absolute right and never violence. At the same time, bad people are bad. The correct way of dealing with them does not ever include the state.

Do you jive with this or not?

The spirit of the 1A isn’t between private citizens.

Obviously.

But any law, no matter how sacrosanct we believe it to be, is still only ultimately worth the paper it's printed on.

Just look at the debate over the Second Amendment. Who the hell knows what that one's about anymore? :D

Sure. But I don't advocate total tolerance. We still have laws and a justice system and trials and jails and the death penalty. I'm even for laying down fair, due process based punishments for extreme speech as long as a massively high bar is maintained. Walking up and punching someone for any speech is never ok, though. We should be a just country of laws... not one that condones harming people just because you disagree with them.

I say keep the state out of it. If we can't figure out how to handle it as individuals and communities, that's on us.

That’s crap. Free speech is already not absolute. Kermit already mentioned hate speech being a crime. You all want to pretend it’s all or nothing when it’s already not that.

That’s crap. Free speech is already not absolute. Kermit already mentioned hate speech being a crime. You all want to pretend it’s all or nothing when it’s already not that.

You presume I'm OK with how free speech is currently understood and handled in this country both culturally and otherwise. I am not.

That’s crap. Free speech is already not absolute. Kermit already mentioned hate speech being a crime. You all want to pretend it’s all or nothing when it’s already not that.

You presume I'm OK with how free speech is currently understood and handled in this country both culturally and otherwise. I am not.

You think there should be no consequences for hate speech?

That’s crap. Free speech is already not absolute. Kermit already mentioned hate speech being a crime. You all want to pretend it’s all or nothing when it’s already not that.

You presume I'm OK with how free speech is currently understood and handled in this country both culturally and otherwise. I am not.

You think there should be no consequences for hate speech?

I'm fine with consequences for hate speech. I'm not sure the state is the best actor by which to judge them as such and then carry out said punishment.

Sure. But I don't advocate total tolerance. We still have laws and a justice system and trials and jails and the death penalty. I'm even for laying down fair, due process based punishments for extreme speech as long as a massively high bar is maintained. Walking up and punching someone for any speech is never ok, though. We should be a just country of laws... not one that condones harming people just because you disagree with them.

I say keep the state out of it. If we can't figure out how to handle it as individuals and communities, that's on us.

Ideally the state is controlled by our communities...

That’s crap. Free speech is already not absolute. Kermit already mentioned hate speech being a crime. You all want to pretend it’s all or nothing when it’s already not that.

You presume I'm OK with how free speech is currently understood and handled in this country both culturally and otherwise. I am not.

You think there should be no consequences for hate speech?

I'm fine with consequences for hate speech. I'm not sure the state is the best actor by which to judge them as such and then carry out said punishment.

Who are the actors that you think should be judge/punisher?

Ideally the state is controlled by our communities...

They are not. You can see this by how poorly behaved they are both now and throughout history.

So now what? This question is not rhetorical.

Who are the actors that you think should be judge/punisher?

I can only really speak for myself and my closest friends and family.

When any of them, including myself, say something untoward and inappropriate in private there is serious discussion about said fact. Nothing held back. These conversation are often very productive for all involved. A new consensus is usually reached, and we move forward with our happy lives together.

Outside of the circle mentioned above the offender is rightly shamed and viciously ridiculed. Should they appear contrite, a process similar to above occurs. If they are not contrite, they are easily forgotten and ignored in the future.

Having just read your post my response to Cats is keeping with the Marvel theme.

Call me crazy.

I should have specified that it was their views that were irredeemable, not the individuals themselves. American History X is such a good film!

But Kermit's silence on the matter is deafening to me.

Just kidding, I'm sure he just hasn't gotten back online.

Our position is simple.

Free speech is an absolute right and never violence. At the same time, bad people are bad. The correct way of dealing with them does not ever include the state.

Do you jive with this or not?

You are operating under the mistaken assumption that violence is inherently immoral. It isn't. And in fact, violence is absolutely necessary for a peaceful society. It is ultimately the only way to enforce laws.

That’s crap. Free speech is already not absolute. Kermit already mentioned hate speech being a crime. You all want to pretend it’s all or nothing when it’s already not that.

Geez, man. Everything is crap with you, or the stupidest thing you've ever heard. There are smart people who know a lot more than you or me who disagree with you. Do you ever have a moment a reflection where you think, "It's possible there's some angle I haven't thought about." I do.

You're implying I said hate speech should be a crime and I don't think I said that. I mentioned hate crimes, and underscored the problem with that concept being yoked with speech--especially when people start conflating speech with acts of violence. Honestly, I think "hate" attached to a legal concept is problematic. Hate is a motivation in many crimes, and in my mind does not change the crime committed. Intention matters, and by that I mean the intended purpose of the action. Demonstrated hate might help prove intention, but intention ultimately is what matters. If someone kills me because they hate short, crippled dudes, or because they hate me personally, or because they wrote a manifesto saying they were going to kill someone today and I was the first person they saw, they are equally guilty of intending to murder and then doing so.

Many of the "hate crimes" that get the most visibility turn out to be fake, and were faked to feed a narrative. That's another problem with this special class of crime. Those that serve a narrative get wall-to-wall coverage, and those that don't, don't. A hundred are murdered in Chicago in a month. Crickets. Most hate crimes recorded in this country by a large margin are directed at Jews. Are we having a national conversation about antisemitism? No. But when a hate crime serves a preferred narrative, it suddenly becomes representative of a huge problem in this country, and we can't talk about anything else. And unfortunately, it validates the nutjobs. A tiny group, like those who play-act at Nazism, who have been for decades seen by everyone as crackpots worth no one's attention are now getting national press, which serves as a kind of recruiting effort for more disaffected idiots. So now, the least racist country on earth supposedly has become a country where Nazism is ascendant. Don't flatter those assholes.

Call me crazy.

I should have specified that it was their views that were irredeemable, not the individuals themselves. American History X is such a good film!

But Kermit's silence on the matter is deafening to me.

Just kidding, I'm sure he just hasn't gotten back online.

I've been hating Nazism since before you were born, whippersnapper. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I respect your intelligence, Nando, and I think we could have a interesting conversation about what we believe and why if we weren't under the stage lights of the internet, eager to deliver the next applause line.

You are operating under the mistaken assumption that violence is inherently immoral. It isn't. And in fact, violence is absolutely necessary for a peaceful society. It is ultimately the only way to enforce laws.

I do not believe violence is inherently immoral.

The fact it's the only way to enforce laws shows why the state is immoral.

You are operating under the mistaken assumption that violence is inherently immoral. It isn't. And in fact, violence is absolutely necessary for a peaceful society. It is ultimately the only way to enforce laws.

I do not believe violence is inherently immoral.

The fact it's the only way to enforce laws shows why the state is immoral.

Without the state there are no laws. There are no rules. There are no ethics. The society that you live in free from the hardships and indifference of nature is only possible by such means. To declare it immoral is to embrace the amorality and suffering of nature. Which, under social contract theory you can choose to do. The fact that nobody today would ever chose to leave the contract is a testament to the value the state provides.

Without the state there are no laws.

True.

There are no rules.

False.

There are no ethics.

False.

The society that you live in free from the hardships and indifference of nature is only possible by such means. To declare it immoral is to embrace the amorality and suffering of nature. Which, under social contract theory you can choose to do. The fact that nobody today would ever chose to leave the contract is a testament to the value the state provides.

My position does not lead to what you describe here but seeks to imagine a social contract free of hierarchy and all the suffering it creates. The state is not the only reasonable option. Never has been.

under the stage lights of the internet, eager to deliver the next applause line.

Hahahahahahaha! I love this.

It's sad we don't all realize we're basically George Michael Bluth playing Star Wars in the garage.

Without the state there are no laws.

True.

There are no rules.

False.

There are no ethics.

False.

The society that you live in free from the hardships and indifference of nature is only possible by such means. To declare it immoral is to embrace the amorality and suffering of nature. Which, under social contract theory you can choose to do. The fact that nobody today would ever chose to leave the contract is a testament to the value the state provides.

My position does not lead to what you describe here but seeks to imagine a social contract free of hierarchy and all the suffering it creates. The state is not the only reasonable option. Never has been.

So what are we talking about here? Do you just don't want to get into your ideal society because it would be a long discussion? I know it's easier to say what you find wrong in someone else's argument than telling your entire side of things but all I'm seeing so far is "that's wrong and I disagree"

Are you for social shaming? Outcasting by societal vote? Who determines what is good? What is bad? Social majority? Who enforces punishment if someone breaks what society thinks is right? Do you even punish them?

So what are we talking about here? Do you just don't want to get into your ideal society because it would be a long discussion? I know it's easier to say what you find wrong in someone else's argument than telling your entire side of things but all I'm seeing so far is "that's wrong and I disagree"

Absolutely don't ask me to set up an ideal society. Not only would it be terrible, but you can't really do that sort of thing based on just one person.

I don't know how to fix the world but I got pretty good at handling my own.

Are you for social shaming? Outcasting by societal vote? Who determines what is good? What is bad? Social majority? Who enforces punishment if someone breaks what society thinks is right? Do you even punish them?

Since I've been away from DBO I've discovered the best label I can find for my political beliefs is anarchism, or more specifically, anti-hierarchy. Anarchy begins at home and so I focus on the issues that are directly in front of my face and that affect my day to day life.

The discussion we're having here, while stimulating and enjoyable, is ultimately academic and has zero real impact on my life. And that's OK because it's absolutely worth having anyway.

If those questions were not rhetorical let me know and I'll be happy to answer them in turn.

So what are we talking about here? Do you just don't want to get into your ideal society because it would be a long discussion? I know it's easier to say what you find wrong in someone else's argument than telling your entire side of things but all I'm seeing so far is "that's wrong and I disagree"

Absolutely don't ask me to set up an ideal society. Not only would it be terrible, but you can't really do that sort of thing based on just one person.

I agree.

I don't know how to fix the world but I got pretty good at handling my own.

Are you for social shaming? Outcasting by societal vote? Who determines what is good? What is bad? Social majority? Who enforces punishment if someone breaks what society thinks is right? Do you even punish them?

Since I've been away from DBO I've discovered the best label I can find for my political beliefs is anarchism, or more specifically, anti-hierarchy. Anarchy begins at home and so I focus on the issues that are directly in front of my face and that affect my day to day life.

The discussion we're having here, while stimulating and enjoyable, is ultimately academic and has zero real impact on my life. And that's OK because it's absolutely worth having anyway.

I think everyone should think about these things. I'm just a very curious person who respects people who has meaningful debates about what they believe. I might be not believe what they believe, or even think it's good. However I can respect them for trying get their point across without resorting to slander or absolutes that go nowhere.

If those questions were not rhetorical let me know and I'll be happy to answer them in turn.

So to answer this question, I guess those questions were both serious and rhetorical at the same time based on if you wanted to answer them :D

So to answer this question, I guess those questions were both serious and rhetorical at the same time based on if you wanted to answer them :D

Fab! I'll give it a whirl. My answers are very specific to myself and my community. They likely won't work well on a macro level.

Are you for social shaming?

Social shame has it's place. Ideally it would help those being shamed into understanding why they are being shamed and perhaps adjust their behavior. That said, if there is contrition, those doing the shaming have the obligation to hammer out some kind arrangement so people can live together without perhaps agreeing on everything.

Outcasting by societal vote?

Outcasting should be an incredibly rare occurrence but be so obviously required something like a vote is superfluous.

Who determines what is good? What is bad? Social majority?

Each individual according to their conscience. Figuring out how to then live with others is the trick of course and it depends on so much I don't really know where to begin at the moment.

Who enforces punishment if someone breaks what society thinks is right? Do you even punish them?

At the level I'm describing it's up to the individuals and community involved.

We are absolutely having a national conversation about antisemitism. Are you kidding? Sure, a lot of it is projection pushed by the party of racist dipshits, but it is absolutely a conversation that is occurring.

I respect your position. It’s very noble. Maybe you’re a better person than I am. In my experience, turning the other cheek is far less effective than standing up for yourself, even if that means doing so with violence. Turning the other cheek often just means letting the other party get away with it. “It” being hateful evil rhetoric that serves as a rallying cry to bring other people to their cause, which directly results in things like what happened in Charlottesville. The world would be a better place if people like Alex Jones were afraid they were going to get a black eye every time they opened their mouths.

There is no easy solution. Regulating speech is absolutely a fine line. That line is not permanent, nor should it be.

So to answer this question, I guess those questions were both serious and rhetorical at the same time based on if you wanted to answer them :D

Fab! I'll give it a whirl. My answers are very specific to myself and my community. They likely won't work well on a macro level.

Are you for social shaming?

Social shame has it's place. Ideally it would help those being shamed into understanding why they are being shamed and perhaps adjust their behavior. That said, if there is contrition, those doing the shaming have the obligation to hammer out some kind arrangement so people can live together without perhaps agreeing on everything.

Outcasting by societal vote?

Outcasting should be an incredibly rare occurrence but be so obviously required something like a vote is superfluous.

Who determines what is good? What is bad? Social majority?

Each individual according to their conscience. Figuring out how to then live with others is the trick of course and it depends on so much I don't really know where to begin at the moment.

Who enforces punishment if someone breaks what society thinks is right? Do you even punish them?

At the level I'm describing it's up to the individuals and community involved.

So on the level you are talking about, I agree with it all. But as you mentioned, this works in our own personal community. But that community exists because you all most likely agree on a set of moral codes, otherwise you probably wouldn't be a community. Family, being a bit different.

In my mind, this all breaks down when you start adding in other communities that have different moral codes. It's when people are of the mind that their moral code is absolute that I just can't stand. Nothing that humans do is absolute or perfect.

The world would be a better place if people like Alex Jones were afraid they were going to get a black eye every time they opened their mouths.

You know what would scare him more? Not getting paid.

So on the level you are talking about, I agree with it all. But as you mentioned, this works in our own personal community. But that community exists because you all most likely agree on a set of moral codes, otherwise you probably wouldn't be a community. Family, being a bit different.

We're a community because we agree. That's very true and a fine state of affairs.

I'm reminded of a very dear friend of mine who is a pagan, Welsh woman. She is a hardcore nationalist with no love for the English or the UK. That said, she thinks a loose confederation of states is the way forward for that area of the world. Wales, Scotland, and England would band together on things like trade and island defense but domestic issues would be strictly their own business.

Maybe that kind of thinking is the beginning of a macro answer.

In my mind, this all breaks down when you start adding in other communities that have different moral codes. It's when people are of the mind that their moral code is absolute that I just can't stand. Nothing that humans do is absolute or perfect.

It occurs to me that the conflict between moral codes might not matter as much if had their material needs met. After all, I need the gods to OK murdering you so I can justify to everyone else why taking your stuff is good. ;)

You see these kinds of ideas in science fiction utopias which not incidentally are a big influence on my thinking.

So on the level you are talking about, I agree with it all. But as you mentioned, this works in our own personal community. But that community exists because you all most likely agree on a set of moral codes, otherwise you probably wouldn't be a community. Family, being a bit different.

We're a community because we agree. That's very true and a fine state of affairs.

I'm reminded of a very dear friend of mine who is a pagan, Welsh woman. She is a hardcore nationalist with no love for the English or the UK. That said, she thinks a loose confederation of states is the way forward for that area of the world. Wales, Scotland, and England would band together on things like trade and island defense but domestic issues would be strictly their own business.

Maybe that kind of thinking is the beginning of a macro answer.

In my mind, this all breaks down when you start adding in other communities that have different moral codes. It's when people are of the mind that their moral code is absolute that I just can't stand. Nothing that humans do is absolute or perfect.

It occurs to me that the conflict between moral codes might not matter as much if had their material needs met. After all, I need the gods to OK murdering you so I can justify to everyone else why taking your stuff is good. ;)

You see these kinds of ideas in science fiction utopias which not incidentally are a big influence on my thinking.

What happens when there are fluctuations in the availability of resources? Or disease epidemics? Local self-regulation of communities is certainly something that needs to take place regardless of scale, but beyond one's immediate community there needs to be some code that's agreed upon and followed; otherwise some group gets too powerful/stressed/hungry and we're right back to friction and falling upon each other. Broad-strokes description of humanity since time immemorial, so it's not saying anything new, but that's still a major thing that all of the smaller-scale community self-regulating isn't able to address.

~m

What happens when there are fluctuations in the availability of resources? Or disease epidemics? Local self-regulation of communities is certainly something that needs to take place regardless of scale, but beyond one's immediate community there needs to be some code that's agreed upon and followed; otherwise some group gets too powerful/stressed/hungry and we're right back to friction and falling upon each other. Broad-strokes description of humanity since time immemorial, so it's not saying anything new, but that's still a major thing that all of the smaller-scale community self-regulating isn't able to address.

~m

Beats me. Find out when it happens, I suppose.

What happens when there are fluctuations in the availability of resources? Or disease epidemics? Local self-regulation of communities is certainly something that needs to take place regardless of scale, but beyond one's immediate community there needs to be some code that's agreed upon and followed; otherwise some group gets too powerful/stressed/hungry and we're right back to friction and falling upon each other. Broad-strokes description of humanity since time immemorial, so it's not saying anything new, but that's still a major thing that all of the smaller-scale community self-regulating isn't able to address.

~m

Beats me. Find out when it happens, I suppose.

I mean, sure. But isn't that basically what's happening now? We have concentric communities that drill down from nation-states to individual households. We can observe all sorts of these forces at any point on that spectrum, all skewed by whatever prevailing factors exist in that place. I agree with your take on how communities should police their own, but I'm curious as to how that gets codified at scale, because otherwise it's kind of just hoping the wind is polite enough not to blow individual piles of sand into each other, you know?

I mean, sure. But isn't that basically what's happening now? We have concentric communities that drill down from nation-states to individual households. We can observe all sorts of these forces at any point on that spectrum, all skewed by whatever prevailing factors exist in that place. I agree with your take on how communities should police their own, but I'm curious as to how that gets codified at scale, because otherwise it's kind of just hoping the wind is polite enough not to blow individual piles of sand into each other, you know?

That's up to better minds than mine.

Call me crazy.

I should have specified that it was their views that were irredeemable, not the individuals themselves. American History X is such a good film!

But Kermit's silence on the matter is deafening to me.

Just kidding, I'm sure he just hasn't gotten back online.

I've been hating Nazism since before you were born, whippersnapper. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I respect your intelligence, Nando, and I think we could have a interesting conversation about what we believe and why if we weren't under the stage lights of the internet, eager to deliver the next applause line.

No need, man. I'd hope that in a conversation where I ask you to denounce white supremacist speech, getting "ask me outside of the internet" as a reply really just says enough.

Ultimately, you think that speech isn't dangerous enough to be equated with violence. Fair enough, you haven't ever been personally targeted by hateful rhetoric, so why would you believe it happens to anyone else (unless you count those evil people waging a war against Christmas with their green Starbucks cups). Ultimately I believe in paying attention to the bubbles outside of my own, where acts of violence by emboldened white supremacists are becoming a more frequent thing.

But maybe you believe in the "troubled lone wolf" spiel, and the increasingly hateful speech has nothing to do with it. That's fine, but I don't believe that's the reality of the world, which is why it's really important to stand up against it. "First they came for" and all that.

No need, man. I'd hope that in a conversation where I ask you to denounce white supremacist speech, getting "ask me outside of the internet" as a reply really just says enough.

Ultimately, you think that speech isn't dangerous enough to be equated with violence. Fair enough, you haven't ever been personally targeted by hateful rhetoric, so why would you believe it happens to anyone else. Ultimately I believe in paying attention to the bubbles outside of my own, where acts of violence by emboldened white supremacists are becoming a more frequent thing.

But maybe you believe in the "troubled lone wolf" spiel, and the increasingly hateful speech has nothing to do with it. That's fine, but I don't believe that's the reality of the world, which is why it's really important to stand up against it. "First they came for" and all that.

There's plenty of people who have been targeted by hateful rhetoric that don't believe as you do. What then?

No need, man. I'd hope that in a conversation where I ask you to denounce white supremacist speech, getting "ask me outside of the internet" as a reply really just says enough.

Ultimately, you think that speech isn't dangerous enough to be equated with violence. Fair enough, you haven't ever been personally targeted by hateful rhetoric, so why would you believe it happens to anyone else. Ultimately I believe in paying attention to the bubbles outside of my own, where acts of violence by emboldened white supremacists are becoming a more frequent thing.

But maybe you believe in the "troubled lone wolf" spiel, and the increasingly hateful speech has nothing to do with it. That's fine, but I don't believe that's the reality of the world, which is why it's really important to stand up against it. "First they came for" and all that.

There's plenty of people who have been targeted by hateful rhetoric that don't believe as you do. What then?

A bold claim, which would need to be backed with evidence. I'm eager to see it!

A bold claim, which would need to be backed with evidence. I'm eager to see it!

I'm a 38 year old male seeking Social Security because of major physical ailments. You should hear the kinds of things people say about that situation both in public and to my face.

Do I think the state should get involved in what they think and what they say? Absolutely not.

- No text -

If you take away free speech, you GUARANTEE violence. This is not only theoretically self evident, but it has been repeatedly proven by history.
Defending free speech is NOT the same thing as condoning awful speech. Trying to equate the two is a pretty disgusting move.

Speech can absolutely be violence, as far as I’m concerned. Someone telling other people that whatever group should be killed (or deported, or jailed, or whatever) is as good as pulling the trigger, especially if that someone has a massive platform with thousands of deranged followers.

You're talking about calls for violence. That already is illegal. But that absolutely is not the same as saying speech is violence.

Calls for violence, and inciting violence aren’t one and the same. I’d hope you can understand nuance, and deliberately worded language that can lead to violence. It’s very much a real thing. I’m glad that you’ve lived a privileged enough life to not see those things happening first-hand though. But don’t let that make you assume that it’s not a real thing.

Because I do understand nuance I said calls for violence and not "deliberately worded language that can lead to violence," which is the kind of slippery language people use when they want to shut you up because you have a different opinion about medicare for all.

You seem overly defensive about this. I’m just saying that speech can totally lead to violence, and while we should champion the first amendment, we as a people should use the power of common sense to say that there are things we should not accept, without bringing government into the conversation. Civil society and all that.

I do not subscribe to the words are just words, marketplace of ideas horseshit. Punch Nazis right in the fucking mouth, forever and always.

NO. This isn't the Weimar Republic. We have free speech so we don't have to punch people (and so we can know the idiots by their speech). You scare me, dude. You complain about people who call for violence, and then you freaking do it. Sigh.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/09/23/why-you-shouldn-punch-nazi/sjghT8vcvVkpbJWMiOrEqN/story.html

Never thought I’d see Kermit defending Nazis on our very forum...
... and yet...

inb4 thread locked.

I'm defending free speech exactly how the ACLU defended free speech until they abandoned their principles a few years ago. You know damn well I'm not defending Nazis, and I'm offended that you'd even joke that I would. I'd ask for an apology but I know that's not your style. Hell, I'll probably get banned again because of your bullshit.

Kind of weird how folks are saying that Nazis are bad, and rather than acknowledging that, you randomly turn the ACLU into the bad guys. Hmm.
Anyway, I don’t subscribe to the “good people on both sides” mentality. There is a clear line between “these people hold this unpopular opinion”, and “these people are racists, and dangerous”. White supremacy is evil; we should NOT tolerate it. Neo Nazis are evil. We as a society that has had plenty of history to learn from, should not tolerate it. It should not be allowed to fester and grow unchecked. Those people should not feel emboldened to spread their vitriol. That line of thinking should be stamped out, because it has been spreading (clearly). And it’s not always so obvious. The below-the surface spread of it is what has led the supposedly pro-life crowd to tolerate (and justify) children dying in cages, causes them to turn the other way when injustices are happening, and causes them to see stuff like kneeling in protest as a bad thing that they want to see stopped (funny how the first amendment suddenly doesn’t matter then, huh?)

Anyway, you know I’ve always been respectful of people who don’t share my perspective, but even so, I think it’s important that we don’t ever defend Nazis, and I don’t think that’s something that anyone would disagree with, because it’s not a “slippery slope” for censorship, it’s stopping evil, and I won’t ever apologize for that. You agree that Nazis and white supremacists are completely, invariably, and irredeemably evil, right?

Okay, gotta admit, I skimmed this last part and somehow missed that you were asking me a direct question (maybe because I didn’t want to believe you felt it necessary to ask). The answer is of course I agree.

So all that crap you wrote later about what my silence says or what my reply says (essentially saying I’m sympathetic with white supremacy)—I’m going to write that off as a misunderstanding. It’s a good thing because it’sa busy time of year. I don’t have time to drive to Georgia and punch you in the face.

Defending free speech is NOT the same thing as condoning awful speech. Trying to equate the two is a pretty disgusting move.

Completely agree. Furthermore free speech empowers you to do something about awful speech!

I mean, given a substantial and very resent heel-face-turn with what it was about for the benefit of firearm manufacturers, we should all know.

I mean, given a substantial and very resent heel-face-turn with what it was about for the benefit of firearm manufacturers, we should all know.

Spell it out for me. I don't understand what you're saying here.

The purpose has changed to “for the individual and their self defense above all” from “for the group and in the defense of good order against those who would do it harm.” This generally coincides with growth in the civilian market and a glorification of a false history of firearms in America through the middle of the 20th century.

Leads us to the irony of someone open carrying a pistol in Tombstone, AZ.

The purpose has changed to “for the individual and their self defense above all” from “for the group and in the defense of good order against those who would do it harm.”

I don't agree with this assessment at all. The Second Amendment is the means by which the rest of the Bill of Rights are ultimately preserved and defended.

A core function of social contract is that your rights only extend to the infringement of the rights of others, at which point you have broken social contract and your protections are forfeit. Thus speech to call into question with the intent of harm (whether physical, psychological, or social) the value of another human or humans means you no longer have those protections as you are infringing on the rights of others who share this contract.

With or without hierarchy this is how it works. Social-anarchy is great, it starts to be harder to maintain at scale. But even then that society only works under its social contract.

I’m down with punching the people who pay him.

I don't agree with this assessment at all. The Second Amendment is the means by which the rest of the Bill of Rights are ultimately preserved and defended.

Which is “for the group and in the defense of good order against those who would do it harm.” It used to be that. My issue is that it isn’t treated as being about that anymore.

That’s incredibly naive.

If that were true, there’d be a lot of dead people in the capitol, but that’s obviously not the case. It’s odd that the group that usually parrots the line you just said are usually the same folks that defend murderous cops and things like the PATRIOT Act and PRISM. I’m aware that I’m generalizing here, but let’s call a spade a spade. Lots of folks are totally okay with the complete erosion of their rights, just not the one about having a gun.

- No text -

A core function of social contract is that your rights only extend to the infringement of the rights of others, at which point you have broken social contract and your protections are forfeit. Thus speech to call into question with the intent of harm (whether physical, psychological, or social) the value of another human or humans means you no longer have those protections as you are infringing on the rights of others who share this contract.

That's not even how our society works, dude! What about self-incrimination and due process?

C'mon now!

I don't agree with this assessment at all. The Second Amendment is the means by which the rest of the Bill of Rights are ultimately preserved and defended.

Which is “for the group and in the defense of good order against those who would do it harm.” It used to be that. My issue is that it isn’t treated as being about that anymore.

I don't know. In my opinion it can be both things you said. They don't seem mutually exclusive.

- No text -

That’s incredibly naive.

If that were true, there’d be a lot of dead people in the capitol, but that’s obviously not the case.

Surprise! People are more reasonable than you give them credit for.

It’s odd that the group that usually parrots the line you just said are usually the same folks that defend murderous cops and things like the PATRIOT Act and PRISM.

I think murderous cops, the Patriot Act, and PRISM are all bad.

I’m aware that I’m generalizing here, but let’s call a spade a spade. Lots of folks are totally okay with the complete erosion of their rights, just not the one about having a gun.

They are fools of the highest order.

I’m down with punching the people who pay him.

How about inspiring them to stop paying him? Perhaps organize boycotts of the products the advertisers sell? You could even make an issue of the fact it's all an act and make it widely known. It could erode his base of support!

Isn't it great? With a little creativity you can do the right thing without violence!

The key difference, historically, was more of circumstance. Obviously outside of populated or “civilized” areas the individual was the group. But entering into an urban or otherwise “civilized” area did not cover the same individual level protections. The reference to Tombstone is because the law there was to coat check any weapons when you entered town and pick them up when you left. Because being armed in town is an attack on the peace of the others in town. The gunfight at the OK Corral was over people refusing to comply with this requirement. And such laws were regularly upheld by the judicial system until more recent rulings superseding the good order of everyone else in favor of the individual.

It’s noble to want to take the higher path. But it is not always effective. And especially given that you’re gonna be fighting uphill against various forms of institutional violence in order to even have an option to compete with it on an entirely peaceful level. I am well aware punching them probably would just result in a different face moving the money. But there is significantly more catharsis in a fist.

The governing bodies take it upon themselves to decide if people have infringed on the rights of others in a criminal trial and if so convicted are relieved of your rights to property, liberty, etc. every single day. That is exactly how it works. Even civil litigation follows that conceit.

Perhaps you could argue against it occurring between individuals, but the logic is there in most interpersonal disputes.

But there is significantly more catharsis in a fist.

And just as much impotence.

The governing bodies take it upon themselves to decide if people have infringed on the rights of others in a criminal trial and if so convicted are relieved of your rights to property, liberty, etc. every single day. That is exactly how it works. Even civil litigation follows that conceit.

Perhaps you could argue against it occurring between individuals, but the logic is there in most interpersonal disputes.

So a jury of my peers isn't a thing anymore either? Just whatever the man decrees, huh?

Weird.

The governing bodies take it upon themselves to decide if people have infringed on the rights of others in a criminal trial and if so convicted are relieved of your rights to property, liberty, etc. every single day. That is exactly how it works. Even civil litigation follows that conceit.

Perhaps you could argue against it occurring between individuals, but the logic is there in most interpersonal disputes.

So a jury of my peers isn't a thing anymore either? Just whatever the man decrees, huh?

Weird.

Heh - my wife works for a bail fund. You'd be amazed at the numbers of days people stay in jail without access to a jury of their peers.

I suppose justice delayed isn't the same as justice denied... but The Man has a hell of a lot of power in our current society.

Heh - my wife works for a bail fund. You'd be amazed at the numbers of days people stay in jail without access to a jury of their peers.

I suppose justice delayed isn't the same as justice denied... but The Man has a hell of a lot of power in our current society.

No doubt. It's a huge problem. It'd be nice if more people knew how it was supposed to work in the first place!

If one is to assume nothing will do anything then there is a clear reason why the cathartic option might be preferable.

If one is to assume nothing will do anything then there is a clear reason why the cathartic option might be preferable.

Doesn't make it any less stupid.

Make a lot more sense in having the twist subversion be the final act imo

- No text -

So, I was trying to take Raga's advice and ignore you, but then you kept dropping my name and insinuating horrible things about me (as you do). You are a master troll, Korny, and I don't know why you expect people to hang on your every word after you deploy your patented opening gambit of shitting on people, but here you go, I'm going to go through your post, reading every word (this time on my computer where I can properly see it).

Speech can absolutely be violence, as far as I’m concerned. Someone telling other people that whatever group should be killed (or deported, or jailed, or whatever) is as good as pulling the trigger, especially if that someone has a massive platform with thousands of deranged followers.

You're talking about calls for violence. That already is illegal. But that absolutely is not the same as saying speech is violence.

Calls for violence, and inciting violence aren’t one and the same. I’d hope you can understand nuance, and deliberately worded language that can lead to violence. It’s very much a real thing. I’m glad that you’ve lived a privileged enough life to not see those things happening first-hand though. But don’t let that make you assume that it’s not a real thing.

Because I do understand nuance I said calls for violence and not "deliberately worded language that can lead to violence," which is the kind of slippery language people use when they want to shut you up because you have a different opinion about medicare for all.

You seem overly defensive about this. I’m just saying that speech can totally lead to violence, and while we should champion the first amendment, we as a people should use the power of common sense to say that there are things we should not accept, without bringing government into the conversation. Civil society and all that.

Yes, speech can lead to violence, but as I said, speech that can be identified as a prelude to violence is where there's an exception to free speech, and that's pretty clearly defined. I don't know what you mean by "things we should not accept" but the progression i see is "let's ban Nazis," then "The right are Nazis," then "Let's ban the right" (or, if it's more relatable to you, "Let's ban Commies," then "the left are Commies," then "Let's ban the left"). It's better to have an environment where people feel free to say what they think, and such an environment is pretty rare and fragile thing in human history. First of all, free speech serves as a safety valve that actually prevents violence. Second, it's one of the best ways to actually know what people think. Third, knowing what people think is a necessary step before you can convince them to think differently.

I do not subscribe to the words are just words, marketplace of ideas horseshit. Punch Nazis right in the fucking mouth, forever and always.

NO. This isn't the Weimar Republic. We have free speech so we don't have to punch people (and so we can know the idiots by their speech). You scare me, dude. You complain about people who call for violence, and then you freaking do it. Sigh.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/09/23/why-you-shouldn-punch-nazi/sjghT8vcvVkpbJWMiOrEqN/story.html

Never thought I’d see Kermit defending Nazis on our very forum...
... and yet...

inb4 thread locked.

I'm defending free speech exactly how the ACLU defended free speech until they abandoned their principles a few years ago. You know damn well I'm not defending Nazis, and I'm offended that you'd even joke that I would. I'd ask for an apology but I know that's not your style. Hell, I'll probably get banned again because of your bullshit.

Kind of weird how folks are saying that Nazis are bad, and rather than acknowledging that, you randomly turn the ACLU into the bad guys. Hmm.

I remember when support of free speech across the the political spectrum was nearly universal in the U.S. It scares me that so many are eager to censor. Maybe it’s because they don’t see any substantive debate anymore, so they don’t see any counter to speech they disagree with other than to ban it. All that’s to say, my mentioning the ACLU wasn’t random—the drop in support of free speech among every day people (as evidenced in this thread) has consequences. Institutions like the ACLU that once supported free speech across the board are the canary in the coal mine.

Anyway, I don’t subscribe to the “good people on both sides” mentality. There is a clear line between “these people hold this unpopular opinion”, and “these people are racists, and dangerous”. White supremacy is evil; we should NOT tolerate it. Neo Nazis are evil. We as a society that has had plenty of history to learn from, should not tolerate it. It should not be allowed to fester and grow unchecked. Those people should not feel emboldened to spread their vitriol. That line of thinking should be stamped out, because it has been spreading (clearly). And it’s not always so obvious. The below-the surface spread of it is what has led the supposedly pro-life crowd to tolerate (and justify) children dying in cages, causes them to turn the other way when injustices are happening, and causes them to see stuff like kneeling in protest as a bad thing that they want to see stopped (funny how the first amendment suddenly doesn’t matter then, huh?)

There’s a lot here to unpack here, but I’ll start with this. Whether I agree with them or not I think it’s possible for people to hold the opinion that the statue of Robert E. Lee should not be removed from a public place and NOT be motivated by racism and/or Nazism or white supremacy. Once you think it’s possible, then it’s possible to interpret that famous comment “good people on both sides” as NOT referring to racists or Nazis or white supremacists. Indeed, the speaker of that comment, intemperate loudmouth though he is, in the same speech immediately clarified that he wasn’t referring to Nazis and white supremacists when he said “good people.”

It’s terrible when children die—agreed.

I haven’t heard any serious person saying football players don’t have the right to kneel. For the record, I’m ambivalent about punishments for speech from any quarter. The answer to speech you don’t like is more speech. That’s been my point all along. It’s possible to say an athlete or neo-Nazi can say what he or she likes about an issue, and at the same time take offense at what they say.

By all means, all of us should argue against racism and bigotry. Another great way to fight it is not to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of racism and bigotry. It cheapens the accusation. Don’t make arrogant comments about them, like they live in a bubble or “I’m glad that you’ve lived a privileged enough life to not see those things happening first-hand” or “you haven't ever been personally targeted by hateful rhetoric.” I mean, how the hell would you know? That’s the kind of crap that really infuriates me. You don’t know what I’ve experienced and it’s bigotry of a kind for you to assume you do. Beyond that is the fact that our personal experiences are only one input to our knowledge and beliefs.

Anyway, you know I’ve always been respectful of people who don’t share my perspective,

That’s hilarious.

but even so, I think it’s important that we don’t ever defend Nazis, and I don’t think that’s something that anyone would disagree with, because it’s not a “slippery slope” for censorship, it’s stopping evil, and I won’t ever apologize for that. You agree that Nazis and white supremacists are completely, invariably, and irredeemably evil, right?

I’m going to answer this question differently this time. I’m all for stopping evil. I think curtailing free speech is a huge evil, and currently it’s a greater threat to our political system than neo-Nazis or Antifa, who I think would be completely ignored were it not for their usefulness. I am upset by the higher visibility of the extremes in our culture, but I strongly suspect it’s astroturf (either by activists, bots, or those on who benefit politically from making the threat larger than it is). I think that social media and the media in general has poisoned civil discourse over the last decade or so. The loudest voices want us to hate each other. Politics have become the Cubs vs. the Yankees or worse, some Old World soccer rivalries that degenerate into violence. I think identity politics is 21-century bigotry legitimized—and one of its worst by-products is that it denies key principles (like color-blindness) that we have traditionally used to argue against white supremacy.

A little story: I met a neo-Nazi once back in the 90s. A friend of mine who lived in a rural area had a dinner party and invited her next door neighbor without really knowing him. I made conversation and figured out pretty quickly where this ignorant kid was coming from. Did I punch him? I did not. I was fascinated. I wanted to know what made him think the way he did. I pretended to neither agree or disagree. In my mind I was letting him give me more and more rope. Nothing came of it because soon enough, my friend (who is of Jewish descent) overheard him and kicked him out. I didn’t blame her at all, but I was a little bit disappointed, because I did want to understand him. My intent was to challenge him at a place where his logic was most vulnerable, and maybe that wouldn’t change him that night, but maybe I could plant a seed.

Korny, you misrepresented what you asked me. In a later post you said that I had not responded when you asked me to “denounce white supremacist speech,” and I went back to see where you had asked that. I found the question in this post and thought I answered it. Then I realized that’s not your question. I’ll condemn evil ideologies all day long, but I’m not as quick to condemn the people. To breitzen’s point, I think almost everyone is redeemable. I hope that kid I met 25 years ago was. I think there are a lot of (especially young) people who enjoy tweaking noses from the safety of the internet, and some of what we see is a version of that. It reminds me of you, actually—I remember your shenanigans with your partner-in-crime Fanella. Claude tells me that you do what you do to “help people think in different ways” or something like that. I’m not convinced—I’m still amazed he made the longest-lived troll ever to hit bungie.org an admin, but he obviously thought you were redeemable. I question his judgment but admire his generosity.

So, I hate the sin, but try (and often fail) to love the sinner. That’s my final answer.

Kerm

P. S. I am still sorta kinda looking forward to seeing the new Star Wars.

P. P. S. I wouldn’t punch you, Korny—but I won’t stand for your making me out to be a racist. Seriously, back off.

P.P.P.S. I love this guy.

I have not, nor have I been, reading this thread sans a few moments from its spark. That said, I am one to click the list of "Latest Postings" as I jump on and off this site every now and again. To what I have read, I have skimmed.

Kermit, from where I sit you have absolutely nothing to fear. Weep for Korny, as he is all the lesser from whatever deep vice has continually pinched out deep this fuel of fear which imbibes forth as venomously malignant verbiage, unchanged. I can say without hindrance or hesitation that many here who, be they active or no longer make effort to speak due to veritable reasons (perhaps seen here in this thread), know you as one of the best in the gold-standard that DBO has still in capability to provide. We are better because you are here. We are honored to even know you by whatever amount that may be. And despite this slander you have endured, you have absolutely nothing to fear.

<3

-INSANEdrive