Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:meh, totally predictable plot lines (Score 1) 70

4. The good outcome will be something leftwing, and the villain will be defeated in-part by some failing of his/her rightwing ideology.

Left-wing and right-wing are overused and meaningless terms. In the traditional sense, there are many things that aren't either right-wing or left-wing. Liberalism (note: not libertarianism) is not left-wing -- the idea that the individual is the most important favours neither the elites (right wing) or the masses (left-wing). In fact, liberalism is fundamentally more right-wing than left-wing, as commercialism enables freedom of choice more than the social norms of a collectivised society does.

And that is what Hollywood goes for in the end -- the triumph of the individual. The individual may triumph over an enemy state (Sean Connory's submarine captain vs USSR: Hunt for Red October); representatives of the USA (Enemy of the State); a corporation; the Dark Lord of Mordor; a natural disaster; an industrial accident; a war... whatever.

It's an old standard in fiction, but Hollywood has focused on it almost exclusively. Team movies have mostly failed until recently, which is why the success of the X-Men and the Avengers was such a surprise to everyone.

Comment Re:Who the hell cast tom hanks in this thing? (Score 1) 70

He couldn't act his way out of a nutsack

Stay strong, Mr. Hanky.

That was my first thought, then I watched the trailer -- this might actually be a perfect role for him. They're placing him as a Jobs-esque stage speaker, and his acting may not be great acting, but it seems to work as a stage speaker style. I just hope there aren't many scenes where he isn't on stage.

Comment Re:good (Score 1) 369

False equivalences? How so? Debate requires demonstrating why someone is wrong, not just saying "you're wrong" and leaving it at that.

Regardless, today it's the jihadis...

You were the one who started talking about history. You can't fob off my arguments about history just by telling me that history is unimportant when your argument was based on history just two messages up.

And in what world am I "shitting" on you? I'm having a debate -- words. These cause you no harm, and you are free to disagree with them. Why make it personal?

Comment Re:good (Score 1) 369

And Christians have been dicks to people, but it's not in the same league as jihadis.

Ignore the particular insult. The point is any reasonable reading of history, <snip>

History tells us of a "Holy" Roman Empire that waged wars within its own borders, a Pope who invented the Crusades and triggered mass murder simply to keep the unruly knights busy looting and pillaging other people's countries. History tells us of pogroms of Jews across Christendom; the murder, exile and forced conversion of Muslims after the Spanish Reconquista; colonialism and further forced conversion in all corners of the world; the slave trade; white supremacists wrapped in warped versions of Christian iconography; Christian churches siding with fascists for fear of secular politics. Hell, there was allegedly even one Christian printer in Africa that sabotaged a safe sex campaign by stapling condoms to a magazine/leaflet, and thereby actually risked causing the spread of AIDS and unwanted pregnancies, simply because of their ideological objection to their client's campaign.

When you claim to point out clear and obvious "truths" about Islam, you end up simply lying about Christianity. That's why people keep objecting to your statements. It's not political correctness, it's factual correctness.

Comment Re:good (Score 1) 369

So sure they'll go after someone mocking "pedo-worshipper" muslims, but probably never anyone mocking Christians for worshiping a zombie or whatever.

"Zombie Jesus" is purile taunting, and there's really no call for it, but it doesn't create the same feeling of pure revulsion as associating someone with child abuse, so let's not start on the "poor marginalised Christians" angle. People are being dicks to Christians, but it's not in the same league as islamophobia.

Comment Re:Inside every "Liberal" is an "Authoritarian" (Score 2) 369

No one said all Mexicans are racists.

That's why I talked about "casting aspersions" and "suggesting". His words we're "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." The implication is that the drug mules, criminals and rapists are proven fact, and the majority, and the good people are an unproven minority. It is a smear.

Comment Re:good (Score 1) 369

It's still all dumb. Don't bother evaluating someone's ideas for truth, just label it an -ism, denounce it, and move on. We must end ismism, because the ismists are killing our ability to think.

That's the "political correctness gone mad" approach -- just claim they're being unreasonable.

There's nothing in most hate speech legislation that stops you discussing facts -- just the stuff that stops you smearing powerless minorities with ideas like "they're all rapists" or "they're all terrorists", ideas that misinform and risk spreading and causing hate. So it's alright to discuss the age of a certain prophet's favourite wife (as documented in the religion's own holy text), but it's really not alright to call followers of his religion "pedo-worshippers" or anything, because that is a statement designed to cause others to hate.

Comment Re:Inside every "Liberal" is an "Authoritarian" (Score 1) 369

Most people attack what Trump is saying. Trump casts aspersions on other people, rather than address their points.

Trump: "we're gonna build a wall to keep the rapist Mexicans out, and it's gonna be great." Someone else: "We don't need a wall, and by the way, it's kind of racist to suggest all Mexicans are rapists." Trump: "There's a media conspiracy, a liberal elite, that is trying to use political correctness to shut me up and telling us we don't need a wall. Just look at Alec Baldwin!"

It's not the same thing at all. (And of course Trump is not the only politician to get impersonated on comedy shows!)

Comment Re:good (Score 1) 369

Hate speech isn't about hating, it's about preaching hate. And it's not about preaching hate against things or against concepts, but against people.

There is a fuzzy line between the two, of course. Sometimes you can preach hate against people even when your words are against a concept. For example "X-ism is a religion of evil" has the clear implication that X-ists are evil -- hate speech. But "Y-ism is based on the words of a paranoid schizophrenic who heard voices and thought he was speaking to a god" only implies that Y-ists are misguided. They may find it offensive, but you can't call it hate speech.

Comment Re:good (Score 1) 369

There's nothing wrong with nationalism.

The core concept of "nationalism" is that of a "nation", derived from the Latin from birth. Original nationalism was tied to the notion of an "English race", a "French race" etc. It believed in a notion of common ancestry and common culture that imposed an unrealistic ideal of uniformity on the people of the country. Nationalism means ignoring regional identities, bulldozing cultural landmarks that don't fit the chosen national myth and denying diversity of religion and language.

Most people don't think that's what they're talking about when they talk about nationalism, but the more they become invested in the notion of a "nation", the more these intolerant attitudes tend to slip in.

The contemporary nationalism truest to the original concept is the USA's "white nationalism" that wants a uniquely "white" race, but not one that speaks French or Spanish, one that speaks English, because white Cajun and white Mexican are not "proper" white. White nationalists are also sticking to the script over religion, and while they're not making much of a fuss over Mormons, that's only because they have other targets at present. Ban Muslims from the country and the white nationalists will start to turn on them. And the white nationalists don't see themselves as racist, just like previous nationalists: they're not against anyone, they just think everyone has their "right place".

Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Working...