Who says these guys were detained by soldiers in combat operations? Most of them weren't. Most of them were turned in by their neighbors for cash rewards.
Oh, I think we are all very clear on that. You think that there are good reasons for ignoring the Constitution, the rule of law, and human rights, I don't. Ignoring the Constitution is about as unpatriotic as it is possible to be.
You misspelled "patriots." When a person attempts to hold their country accountable for transgressions against human rights, they are a patriot. Attempting to cover up for your country's crimes makes you a criminal.
American CEOs haven't made that little in decades, the average is 400 to 1 now. For all enterprises, not just Fortune 500 companies, where the inequality is even greater. And Fortune 500 CEOs make that income whether they perform or not. They make money when the company is losing money. This is not about retaining the best talent in order to increase profits for the shareholders. Shareholders are patsies, especially the little shareholders who likely are only in the stock market at all because of their 401k plans. That is to say, to Fortune 500 CEOs, most of us are patsies. They won't let you into their little oligarchs club for defending them in public, you know.
If only some things are non-scarce, it isn't a post scarcity culture. You don't get to the post scarcity way of thinking until you simply don't ever have to fear running out of money. As long as there is a possibility you might STARVE without money, it is not even close to post scarcity.Howver, the reason "The Internet" is not a post scarcity culture is even simpler. "The Internet" is not a culture. It does not contain the means of production or support for most of its users, and it is not at all homogeneous.
If you enjoy sci fi, but not books, then yeah, you probably are. You need to include that "as opposed to" to make the comparison valid. See it? You copied it from what I wrote, but it's as if it is invisible to you.
Yes, that was short for "to mainstream literary critics, sci fi is like comic books." But try typing that into the title field, and you will see why I had to abbreviate. Perhaps I wasn't clear, perhaps you are an idiot, it really isn't for me to judge.
Are you comparing what I wrote to the ravings of Mel Gibson now? The lengths we will go to to justify our actions, huh? I'm sure people do think that mainstream literature includes some beautiful and artistic stuff, because it does, and I never said otherwise. Now it sounds like you are denying that Sci Fi includes beautiful and artistic works, the way you take issue with me describing it that way. Really, the more I read, the more it sounds as though you absolutely HATE having something like sci fi compared to real literature.
And according to the article, we are talking about mainstream literature like James Patterson. Just FYI. I'm rather scared of saying anything about authors like James Patterson right now, believe it or not, for fear of insulting more thin skinned readers. Like whatever you like, I don't give a fuck anymore. There's no accounting for taste, or so I'm told. Eat dog shit off a plate for all I care. It's lovely, smells delicious, but I just ate, thanks, so no. I'm, not having any.
Did I label "mainstream lit" as snobby? Where? Quote me the place where I labeled mainstream lit as snobby. For a person who apparently enjoys reading, you sure don't seem to sweat the comprehension part.
For the record, I said that people who are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books" are elitist snobs. I did not distinguish my way of enjoying reading as superior to and more educated than their way of enjoying reading. Not even close. I also did not slander all people who enjoy literature, nor all of mainstream literature. I quite carefully picked out a rather small class of people, those who don't really enjoy reading books, but enjoy "literature."
No, you just denigrated me, personally, which of course makes it okay and not hypocritical at all. I'm sorry, but the literary portion of the art world is just as snobby and elitist as the rest of the art world. Been to any "outsider art" exhibitions recently? Come on, even The Simpsons made fun of the elitism and snobbery of the art world, are you really saying that it is a model of egalitarianism and meritocracy? Or are you claiming the literary part of it is different than the visual arts part?
Now I feel as though I should apologize to those I've insulted. Okay, to everyone in that whole class of people who, I quote,
are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books"
I wasn't really talking about people who actually love literature. I was talking about the literary part of the "art world," a rarefied place where self promotion, hucksterism, petty jealousies and ambition rule over talent and technical skill. It's a rather elitist world, the art world. Outsiders are not especially welcome there, (look at the condescending exhibitions of "outsider art." That's what they call it.) and Sci Fi writers are still outsiders to the art world.
Now my hypocrite radar is going off. How is your critique of me any different from my critique of elitist literary critics? How is it any different from their critique of literature for that matter? It's all opinion anyhow. Either don't critique, or don't insult others for doing so.
So if I distinguish myself from the elitist snobs, I'm an elitist snob? And if I admit to being an elitist snob, I'm an elitist snob. So I guess in your world, I'm an elitist snob no matter what I do. Good. Now I know how much weight to give your opinion.
And you sound personally offended. Why is that? I thought it was common knowledge that the world of "literature" is full of self involved, egotistical failures who can't produce anything of artistic merit, and therefore tear down others who actually can.
Right on the money. It's a cliquish little world, full of self important people who couldn't produce anything of real value. And from some of the replies I have read here, apparently some of them read Slashdot.
I stand by my characterization of people who style themselves as lovers of "literature," as opposed to "books," as elitist snobs. Not all of them, of course, but enough to make the characterization accurate. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Did you major in literature? Because it sounds as though you were personally offended by what I wrote, enough so that you felt compelled to insult me, personally. If so, you have my apologies, and my assurance that YOU are not one of those elitist snobs I was referring to.
The Federation is a post scarcity society. Any post scarcity society where money still exists would be more of a totalitarian nightmare than a utopia. And nothing about any of the stories implies the Federation is a military state, that just happens to be the only part with any dramatic tension (see above.)
I would posit that you simply haven't read much good science fiction. I've compiled a short list down below, maybe start there and then get back to me. And I'm sorry, but there is quite a bit of pretentious trash called "great literature." Literature is part of the art world, where personality and self promotion matter more than real talent.
Am I really? How exactly was I condescending to mainstream literature? I did say that people who were into "literature" as opposed to "reading books" tend to be elitist snobs, but that isn't slandering mainstream literature, or even the realm of literary criticism. I was merely pointing out that, if you characterize yourself as enjoying "literature" as opposed to "reading" you may be an elitist snob. Just say it to yourself: "I like reading books." Now say "I enjoy literature." Which sounded snobbier to you?
Psychological projection is the habit of ascribing to others those parts of your own personality that you refuse to accept. I accept that I am opinionated and critical. Therefore, projection is hardly the correct term, Mr. Hanky. Now, are you mad because you characterize yourself as enjoying literature, or is it something more personal?
That's because realistic utopias without external threats would hold absolutely no dramatic tension. You could basically write, "And they all lived happily ever after" and be done with it. So utopias in fiction have to be either false utopias, or faced with a credible existential threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says these guys were detained by soldiers in combat operations? Most of them weren't. Most of them were turned in by their neighbors for cash rewards.
If the average worker in many industries is making a McDonald's level wage, then we have a very serious problem in our country.
Oh, I think we are all very clear on that. You think that there are good reasons for ignoring the Constitution, the rule of law, and human rights, I don't. Ignoring the Constitution is about as unpatriotic as it is possible to be.
You misspelled "patriots." When a person attempts to hold their country accountable for transgressions against human rights, they are a patriot. Attempting to cover up for your country's crimes makes you a criminal.
American CEOs haven't made that little in decades, the average is 400 to 1 now. For all enterprises, not just Fortune 500 companies, where the inequality is even greater. And Fortune 500 CEOs make that income whether they perform or not. They make money when the company is losing money. This is not about retaining the best talent in order to increase profits for the shareholders. Shareholders are patsies, especially the little shareholders who likely are only in the stock market at all because of their 401k plans. That is to say, to Fortune 500 CEOs, most of us are patsies. They won't let you into their little oligarchs club for defending them in public, you know.
If only some things are non-scarce, it isn't a post scarcity culture. You don't get to the post scarcity way of thinking until you simply don't ever have to fear running out of money. As long as there is a possibility you might STARVE without money, it is not even close to post scarcity.Howver, the reason "The Internet" is not a post scarcity culture is even simpler. "The Internet" is not a culture. It does not contain the means of production or support for most of its users, and it is not at all homogeneous.
If you enjoy sci fi, but not books, then yeah, you probably are. You need to include that "as opposed to" to make the comparison valid. See it? You copied it from what I wrote, but it's as if it is invisible to you.
Yes, that was short for "to mainstream literary critics, sci fi is like comic books." But try typing that into the title field, and you will see why I had to abbreviate. Perhaps I wasn't clear, perhaps you are an idiot, it really isn't for me to judge.
Are you comparing what I wrote to the ravings of Mel Gibson now? The lengths we will go to to justify our actions, huh? I'm sure people do think that mainstream literature includes some beautiful and artistic stuff, because it does, and I never said otherwise. Now it sounds like you are denying that Sci Fi includes beautiful and artistic works, the way you take issue with me describing it that way. Really, the more I read, the more it sounds as though you absolutely HATE having something like sci fi compared to real literature.
And according to the article, we are talking about mainstream literature like James Patterson. Just FYI. I'm rather scared of saying anything about authors like James Patterson right now, believe it or not, for fear of insulting more thin skinned readers. Like whatever you like, I don't give a fuck anymore. There's no accounting for taste, or so I'm told. Eat dog shit off a plate for all I care. It's lovely, smells delicious, but I just ate, thanks, so no. I'm, not having any.
Ugh. That's even worse.
Did I label "mainstream lit" as snobby? Where? Quote me the place where I labeled mainstream lit as snobby. For a person who apparently enjoys reading, you sure don't seem to sweat the comprehension part.
For the record, I said that people who are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books" are elitist snobs. I did not distinguish my way of enjoying reading as superior to and more educated than their way of enjoying reading. Not even close. I also did not slander all people who enjoy literature, nor all of mainstream literature. I quite carefully picked out a rather small class of people, those who don't really enjoy reading books, but enjoy "literature."
No, you just denigrated me, personally, which of course makes it okay and not hypocritical at all. I'm sorry, but the literary portion of the art world is just as snobby and elitist as the rest of the art world. Been to any "outsider art" exhibitions recently? Come on, even The Simpsons made fun of the elitism and snobbery of the art world, are you really saying that it is a model of egalitarianism and meritocracy? Or are you claiming the literary part of it is different than the visual arts part?
Now I feel as though I should apologize to those I've insulted. Okay, to everyone in that whole class of people who, I quote,
are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books"
I apologize. We cool now, bro?
I wasn't really talking about people who actually love literature. I was talking about the literary part of the "art world," a rarefied place where self promotion, hucksterism, petty jealousies and ambition rule over talent and technical skill. It's a rather elitist world, the art world. Outsiders are not especially welcome there, (look at the condescending exhibitions of "outsider art." That's what they call it.) and Sci Fi writers are still outsiders to the art world.
Now my hypocrite radar is going off. How is your critique of me any different from my critique of elitist literary critics? How is it any different from their critique of literature for that matter? It's all opinion anyhow. Either don't critique, or don't insult others for doing so.
So if I distinguish myself from the elitist snobs, I'm an elitist snob? And if I admit to being an elitist snob, I'm an elitist snob. So I guess in your world, I'm an elitist snob no matter what I do. Good. Now I know how much weight to give your opinion.
And you sound personally offended. Why is that? I thought it was common knowledge that the world of "literature" is full of self involved, egotistical failures who can't produce anything of artistic merit, and therefore tear down others who actually can.
Right on the money. It's a cliquish little world, full of self important people who couldn't produce anything of real value. And from some of the replies I have read here, apparently some of them read Slashdot.
I stand by my characterization of people who style themselves as lovers of "literature," as opposed to "books," as elitist snobs. Not all of them, of course, but enough to make the characterization accurate. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Did you major in literature? Because it sounds as though you were personally offended by what I wrote, enough so that you felt compelled to insult me, personally. If so, you have my apologies, and my assurance that YOU are not one of those elitist snobs I was referring to.
Well, I heard that also, but I was trying to be nice on the assumption that mekkab wasn't being facetious and actually liked the books.
Reality Television. Nice troll, though.
The Federation is a post scarcity society. Any post scarcity society where money still exists would be more of a totalitarian nightmare than a utopia. And nothing about any of the stories implies the Federation is a military state, that just happens to be the only part with any dramatic tension (see above.)
I would posit that you simply haven't read much good science fiction. I've compiled a short list down below, maybe start there and then get back to me. And I'm sorry, but there is quite a bit of pretentious trash called "great literature." Literature is part of the art world, where personality and self promotion matter more than real talent.
Am I really? How exactly was I condescending to mainstream literature? I did say that people who were into "literature" as opposed to "reading books" tend to be elitist snobs, but that isn't slandering mainstream literature, or even the realm of literary criticism. I was merely pointing out that, if you characterize yourself as enjoying "literature" as opposed to "reading" you may be an elitist snob. Just say it to yourself: "I like reading books." Now say "I enjoy literature." Which sounded snobbier to you?
Psychological projection is the habit of ascribing to others those parts of your own personality that you refuse to accept. I accept that I am opinionated and critical. Therefore, projection is hardly the correct term, Mr. Hanky. Now, are you mad because you characterize yourself as enjoying literature, or is it something more personal?
That's because realistic utopias without external threats would hold absolutely no dramatic tension. You could basically write, "And they all lived happily ever after" and be done with it. So utopias in fiction have to be either false utopias, or faced with a credible existential threat.
I believe "SyFy is pronounced "Shoot Yourself in the Fucking eYes so you don't have to witness this crap."