Slashdot Mirror

Anime fans seem to suffer from the mistaken belief that just because its directed at an adult audience automatically makes it mature. The adult anime that I've seen has almost all been puerile and appeals to a juvenile sensibility of violence and sex.

I truly would not want a 'mature' Pixar movie. I love the innocent sense of humor that they inject into their movies. Maybe you have to have kids of your own to truly appreciate it, but there is something special about Pixar movies that you just have to 'get' or not.

parody ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-d)
n. pl. parodies

A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature.
The genre of literature comprising such works.
Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.

But you realize that Communism and individual rights are inherently incompatable, don't you? It's telling that every single Communist (by which I mean Marxist) state that's ever been set up has been totalitarian. There's simply no other way to impose that economic system on people, or even the gross caricature of it that most Marxist states seem to be limited to. The proletariat simply doesn't behave as Marx thought he would. With American-style checks and balances, resulting in an American-style limited government, Marxism is totally unworkable.

The troubling part isn't even so much that our elected officials don't seem to represent the people much. A single man such as the President isn't going to represent everyone's interests no matter how hard he tries anyway. But we actually have far more say in who becomes President now than in the system envisioned by the Founding Fathers. At least now the electors are more or less bound to vote for whom they're told to vote for. That's statutory, or mere custom, not Constitutional. The Constitution just says that the people choose the electors. And we now directly elect our Senators, where for nearly 150 years they were appointed by the state legislatures.

The system we now have in place for selecting Presidential candidates effectively prevents any single person or organization, no matter how influential, from determining who they are to be. It's easy to forget now that before the Iowa caucus, Howard Dean was commonly assumed to be the Democrats' obvious choice. Kerry took everyone by surprise. Unless you're going to assume that some super-powerful organization infiltrated every single caucus meeting in Iowa -- which, remember, takes place among people who pretty much all know each other in settings as intimate as someone's living room -- but I'm sorry. That's just too silly to contemplate.

You can put all the rights you want on a piece of paper, and the people won't derive a single right from it as long as those holding the reins of government are able to override those words with impunity. That the US government has been doing that for many years now, often backed up by the courts, has troubled anyone who's been paying attention. They're just being a tad more obvious about it now in some ways. Or perhaps those troubled about the way they're doing it now is inclusive of a wider set of people.

The Founders assumed that the people would take action to defend their rights when the elected officials trampled on them by voting them out of office in the next election. The American people have proven to favor incumbents far more consistently than the Founders contemplated. That's troubling.

Early depictions of Hitler were often comical caricatures. Chaplin's film The Great Dictator lampooned him, for instance.

There are several possibilities.

1. Bush is adopting the mannerisms of an idiot in order that his real motivations will be concealed, and his actions will seem less devious.
2. A lack of wisdom and a simple mind make him easy prey for those in his administration who lust for power.
3. He's being mischaracterized by an overly critical press corps, and his mannerisms are close to True American Values (tm).

The last rationale seems implausible.

The Nehibore of the SIM Family. She's old. She's mean and she hates kids.

This is one of those teacher who looks like a really boring woman, but if you take away the glasses and gives her another haircut, shes a really sexy top model!

He and his sister Mara are inseperable and very much alike...being that they are twins. But he really looks up to his older sister...and likes to copy her by wearing his PJ's all day (when he's home).

She loves hanging out in her room giving herself makeovers and watching movies in her undies...with popcorn....ahhh the life of a girl.

Loves walks by the beach and loves kids. She just needs a husband and she's set.

Now, my only point was the sheer level of hostility in your post, combined with some use of the retoric (the T-word and implying the anon poster was anti-american) of the pro-Bush, 'My Country Right or Wrong', camp was inspiring. IMO, it illustrates how meaningless those words have become. That people's opinions are discounted by simply calling them 'Unpatriotic' because they dare question the government.

Now, what I find ridiculous about this situation is the two sides of the war. Anti-Bush people who can seem to be unable to criticize anything about Bush except for his intelligence (or lack thereof), and the pro-Bush people who criticize anyone who doesn't agree with Bush as unpatriotic. They've become caricatures all to themselves. How can anyone take either side seriously, I wonder.

Since I'm a Canadian citizen, I can laugh off most silly charges of me being Anti-American. Frankly it's neither an insult or a complement to me. I have even been told that I have no right to speak on these topics. Even throughout the Maher Arar deportation by US authorities (perhaps with the Canadian government's blessings) to Syria to be tortured, some people maintained that no one had the right to say anything about this except for the US government. Can't break this glass house they live in, or the entire world they live in might come crumbling down.

I have my doubts about the justice that Maher will get with the inquiry about his case that's going on. After all, what can you really expect when the RCMP raid a reporter's house after she dug up some secret documents on the case.

Stalin killing 26 million people DIDN'T? MAO killing 15 million still failed to taint your view of communism? Castro's Amazing Island Paradise You Can't Leave Because Of The Machine Guns We've Placed On The North Beach For Your Protection didn't manage to sully your opinion of the great communist revolution? Geez- Freedom fighters is a caricature. I found it hilarious and corny.

The "W" word would be "Wog," short for "Golliwog," an ugly, caricaturized black doll featuring in the illustrations of Florence Upton (an American who spawned a Britishism. Go figure).

If you still can't figure out the "N" word from that just Google on "Joseph Conrad bio" and the word will be found in the titles of his novels, down at the bottom of the page of the first hit.

So, that's where the name "Miami" comes from. The Spanish asked a neighboring tribe, "Who are those people over there?" To which they got the answer, "Oh them? They're nothing but a bunch of wogs."

They then Latinized their mishearing and misunderstanding of the word into "Miami" and applied it to the people as the proper noun of the tribe. (The word actually literally translated as "pigeon")

This is all totally unrelated to the northern Algonquin tribe also known as the Miami, from a French mispronounciation/Latinization of an Objiwe name for them, which at least was geographically descriptive ("Those people who live over there") as opposed to derogatory.

KFG

I think you're attacking a popular caricature of religion there; equating religion with zealotry

Not so much religion as people who cling to what they think they know, be it religious or scientific beliefs. The idea is that a 'scientific' view should be focused more on providing explinations that fit the evidence, and not on defending a position because it is popular or long-held. I tend to use religious zealotry as an example just because it tends to be a target-rich environment that many people can relate to, but there is no shortage of other examples.

It's not possible to distinguish "knowledge" and "belief" in the way that you suggest

Agree, also re 'true' belief. Although that particular definition seems weak.

The distinction I think you're trying to make is one of justification, rather than belief

Perhaps. Some propositions, I can, in principle, test by verifying their justifications, reproducing any observations and experiments from which they were infered.

Some other propositions I cannot test, even in principle, because their justifications cannot be tested. They must either be take them as true, or rejected.

It seems that for many people, once a propositions that cannot be tested has been taken as true, it cannot easily be changed, whereas beliefs that can be tested may be discarded when their justfications are eliminated.

I personally place much more value on facts/propositions that can be verified than on those that cannot. This is not to say that I don't respect others who place value differently, just that doing so does not appeal to my particular conciousness. I must have strong justification before I promote a proposition from 'idea' to 'tentative belief', and so far nothing has made it past that point to 'firm belief' :)

I would agree with Feyerabend's assertion that science should be placed in the same catagory as religions. It is certainly a more elegant arrangment, and that does appeal to me.

First up, I think you're attacking a popular caricature of religion there; equating religion with zealotry. Not all religion is zealotry, and not all folks who are religious are zealots. Some of them are downright insipid, and some of them are amongst the world's greatest philosophers, scientists, and so on. You paint with a broad brush, but I'll overlook that and move to the more important points.

It's not possible to distinguish "knowledge" and "belief" in the way that you suggest. The traditional formulation of "knowledge" in Epistemology (the branch of philosophy that ponders about knowledge and its limits) is "justified, true belief". (Personally, I have a real problem with the "true" part, but that's another story.) The distinction I think you're trying to make is one of justification, rather than belief. Exaggerating a little to make a point, you think that scientific claims are justified, and religious claims are unjustified. It's an interesting question as to what kind of evidence (if any) warrants belief in religious sorts of propositions, but science also runs into this difficulty in greater force than you might expect.

Again I want to make two points: first, that science can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and, secondly, that non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so, if this is the wish of their representatives. ...there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to reality.

-- Paul Feyerabend, "Against Method" (3rd ed.), 1993, p.viii

Provocative stuff for those scientific rationalists who are accustomed to thinking themselves in an intellectually superior position to the religious folks. Feyerabend wasn't afraid to push a few buttons with his polemic. On the other hand, he's all for your "different people have different sets [of values] by which they make judgements". Its a question of whether you're going to respect the judgements of others, or claim the intellectual high ground like Richard Dawkins, who declares that if science has nothing to say about a matter, then its certain nothing else does.

Thanks. I'm not familiar with the commercials or "Monster Garage". Are you talking about a caricature of the infamous 19th century Old West bandit (which is what I was referring to), or is there some real guy who also happens to be named Jesse James who hosts this show and is on the commercials? Thanks, and I apologize for my ignorance.

"...you can go fuck yaself."

What a lovely attitude towards the people you support. You're like the caricature on SNL - "The Computer Guy". Eventually, even though you're apparently God's gift to PC support, you'll eventually piss off the boss's secretary, Bob in accounting, and Jessica in HR - and you'll be known as "that asshole from Tech Support."

Wonder how you'll do on your raise?

If people like you *are* perceived as the best that IT support can offer, then it's no wonder people perceive computers as mystical, hard to use, and intimidating. They don't want to learn or ask questions, because you make them feel insignificant and stupid.

If people aren't 'catching on' to what you're teaching - not just one or two, but many - why would you assume that *they're* the problem?

It's this exact elitist asshole attitude that plagues IT and support personnel in many companies.

Oh, yeah - I also did 6 years of phone and desk-side computer support. I was always courteous, friendly, and tried my damndest to be understanding. We know this shit. They don't, and don't care HOW it works.

I can only hope that someday you'll realize how arrogant and rude you sound in your posts. It's YOUR FUCKING JOB to provide support for these people, according to the message you posted.

To summarize: Post-modernists are idiots. They are wrong, but I am right. Because I am right, post-modernists should get out of the way and let me do what I want. Because I am right. Science is the best.

Nice caricature. Not very useful, though.

The post-modernists I've run across believe that "good" is relative. Some of them even believe that truth is relative as well, and as such no belief system is any more valid than another.

But science is a belief system only to the extent that one believes his own observations. This is sufficient to cover just about everyone.

The scientific method isn't just some arbitrary method of arriving at conclusions about the world. It is one that people the world over use and rely upon almost automatically. It is being used whenever someone asks "what happens if I do X?" and then proceeds to do X in order to see what happens. It is being used whenever someone attempts to solve a real-world problem or to control his environment. It is being used whenever the process of arriving at a solution or of controlling one's environment involves observation of the results and incorporation of those results into the next set of actions.

In short, those very same post-modernists routinely use the scientific method in their everyday lives. That alone gives the scientific method a level of validity above the level those same post-modernists would assign to an arbitrary belief system. Science is just the formalization of the most effective methods people routinely use to understand their environment.

Now, how does this relate to belief systems? More precisely, how does this relate to freedom of expression, human rights, etc.? Simple.

It is simple observation that people value their own happiness. This isn't something that can be debated, because the drive to be happy is instinctive. The amount of effort people expend in the pursuit of happiness exceeds everything else. There are many things that make people happy, of course, from having sufficient food to spending time with friends.

This gives us an objective basis upon which we can define "Good". "Good" is that which maximizes happiness. "Bad" or "Evil" is that which reduces happiness. All that remains is whether the happiness in question is restricted to one (or a few) individuals or if it is spread to a much wider audience.

Because people value happiness, and because observation and history shows us unequivocally that people are happier when they are free than when they are not, it automatically follows that freedom is a good thing. The concept of human rights is a codification of this observation, a statement that freedom is such a necessity for human happiness that everyone should have it.

These aren't arbitrary conclusions to be disposed of as easily as those of any other belief system, these are conclusions that come directly from real-world observation, the same sort of observation almost everyone, of any belief system, including the post-modernists who might disagree, uses to go about their daily lives.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speec h/ hustler.html

No. 86-1278

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

485 U.S. 46

Argued December 2, 1987

Decided February 24, 1988

Syllabus

Respondent, a nationally known minister and commentator on politics and public affairs, filed a diversity action in Federal District Court against petitioners, a nationally circulated magazine and its publisher, to recover damages for, inter alia, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of an advertisement "parody" which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events," but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim, stating that he should be awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contention that the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. Rejecting as irrelevant the contention that, because the jury found that the parody did not describe actual facts, the ad was an opinion protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the court ruled that the issue was whether the ad's publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" [47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57.

797 F. 2d 1270, reversed.

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, AND SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 57. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner Hustler Magazine, Inc., is a magazine of nationwide circulation. Respondent Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs, sued petitioner and its publisher, petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of [48] privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against respondent on the privacy claim, and submitted the other two claims to a jury. The jury found for petitioners on the defamation cl

Hmmm... I'm a little reluctant to comment on this, since I'm only marginally familiar with Oregon politics. The version I heard (please understand I have no way of knowing if this is accurate or not) is that the proposed tax increase was presented as a way of funding education and public safety. The problem is that people understand that money is fungible, and Oregon already has one of the highest tax burdens in the country. So people who already felt they were highly taxed said "Wait a minute. If we're already highly taxed, what are the taxes we're paying *now* going for? Why agree with the need for education and public safety, but why can't our government pay for those by prioritizing its needs, and cutting less essential programs?"

Look, I emphatically am *not* arguing with you. I'm not saying the above scenario is accurate. I'm simply restating my previous point, which is that it's easy -- but usually wrong -- to demonize people who don't want to shovel money into the burning maw of public education (Cue Mrs. Lovejoy wailing "Won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN!").

The only point where I believe you are mistaken is where you say: "There is certainly a large strain of right-wingers ... who definitely think that tax cuts are more important than public education, and that providing good comprehensive public education to every child isn't a social goal worth funding."

It is, I believe, correct to say that VERY, VERY FEW "right wingers" -- a microscopic minority -- actually believe this caricature of conservative thought. The vast majority of conservatives are regular people who generally accept that education is one of those things is that is appropriately of government concern.*

Cheers,

- jc

* I almost wrote "appropriately provided by the government." But I think it would be more accurate to say that some conservatives feel that way, and others feel that, generally, the government should simply ensure that the educational needs of kids are being met, whether by providing it itself, or regulating charter schools, or whatever is best in any given situation. But they all feel government should have *some* role.

Whew! I really went on way too long there.

um... rated [3]? imho this previous post is far more informative than the mod rating it might have perceived it as: while not checking windows update too often, i never see any new patches, even on boxen not using the automatic update feature. i don't know about anyone else, but i find it surprising and uncoincidental that m$ have reacted to threats to their product(s) this "quickly" and massively after an m$ developper - erm.. SPY ;-) - may have noticed this /. post... interesting turn in events... possibly a test... but now i feel i'm turning into that paranoid HL2 fan caricature in the cartoon mockings of Valve available at Planet Half-Life...

While I found it an ironic caricature of the book, if you watch the DVD Verhoen flatly states he never read the book, and presumably had no idea he was making a satire of anything. Sadly, it simply wound up appearing that way. I enjoyed the movie for it's unintentional irony, but do not make the mistake of thinking there was purpose there.

I was never into Metroid, but take a walk with me down woo lane (post HK era):

Hard Target (1993) - Okay, not too bad.
Broken Arrow (1996) - Upon a second viewing pretty bad. At the time, cool.
Once a Thief (1996) (TV) - A really bad TV version of my favorite Woo film, Once a Thief (but only the Chinese version)
Face/Off (1997) - I still like this movie. Entertaining at the very least.
Blackjack (1998) (TV) - Wow. Bad. Not much more to say.
Mission: Impossible II (2000) - Dear lord, what is happening to John Woo? This is like a self-parody!
Windtalkers (2002) - No, God, no! Horrible writing, acting, and pretty bad directing and editing.

The John Woo of 2004 is not the same Woo we've all come to love. America has not been kind to him. He has become a caricature of himself. Just watch the old Woo films and pretend he never came to America (In fact, same goes for Chow Yun-Fat).

She's a psychologist and believes that it means I have a positive self-image. I'm not sure if she's right (who am I to disagree with a psychologist, though?) but I has made me think about the dynamics of character choosing in something like an MMORPG. A male friend of mine on FFXI chose to be a Mithra (the "catgirl" race). His view was that he thought the Mithra would be good as monks in the game... but he's also a huge anime fan and I wonder how much something like Outlaw Star (or the thousands of other "catgirls" in anime) may have subconsciously informed his decision.

Then I look at the diminutive Tarutarus in the games and wonder how many of them are males. They're so small and "cute" that I don't know how many men would choose that race, or how many women would choose the huge, hulking Galka race...

The only MMORPG I've ever played is FFXI, so I can't speak to EQ or any of the others... but have people had similiar questions about their online companions? Is there more of a chance for idealizing a character in one of those?