only instead of traffic light intersections it has roundabouts. What this means in practice is that using the major roads it's possible to get everywhere quickly and easily, even in rush hour you don't get caught for too long.
Roundabouts break down in high traffic. When a roundabout is at full capacity, you have to throw yourself into moving traffic without regard for safety. At least traffic lights give everyone a chance to go.
To understand the movie Starship Troopers it is crucial that you realise the _entire_ movie is propaganda for the Earth's military government. It is clear at the start, and the finish, but it never stops being that a propaganda show.
Thank you. I'm glad someone else realizes this. Most people who do, think the movie must be satire because who would make such obvious fascist propganda as entertainment? But there's nothing satirical, there is no winking acknowldegement of how awful it is.
How is it obvious that it is satire? It looks like a whole hearted endorcement of fascism. What evidence is there that it is not?
I think people who think ST is satire are simply uncomfortable with watching fascist propaganda, and decide that it's not really fascist propaganda to make themselves more comfortable.
Can you complete this sentence for me? "Starship troopers is obviously satire because..."
Are you fucking kidding me? Archaeologists get excited digging through ancient garbage. How can there be any doubt that relics from the birth of the internet won't be incredibly informative to future civilizations?
It's attitudes like yours that caused so many silent films or early episodes of Doctor Who to be lost to time.
Is he going to use his car to drive around town with a megaphone ranting about niggers and jews? If so, and you knew about it, then you were wrong to support him.
You have the right to peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Shutting the city down isn't peaceable.
Non-violent resistance is peaceable.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott was entirely different. The blacks in the city simply didn't ride the buses, but the buses ran just the same, the city functioned just fine, albeit without those bus fares
Making the bus system unprofitable disrupts the city just as surely as a sit-in does.
(and what could they have done? ordered people to ride the bus?)
They could have levied a tax to support the bus system. Ironically that would have been far more constitutional than the anti-first amendment tactics you are defending.
Now, if they had instead chosen to lay down in front of the buses, that would have been very different, and reasonable law enforcement action would have been justified and uncontroversial.
Laying in front of traffic for any reason is illegal, for good reason. When you pass laws that only apply to protesters, that's when you fall afoul of the first amendment. Anywhere that I am allowed to stand on the sidewalk, I must be allowed to stand on the sidewalk with a protest sign with a few thousand of my closest friends. Any time a behavior is permitted, but then not permitted in the context of a protest, is a violation of our first amendment rights.
And the "Kodak Moment Rule" isn't actually used for day-to-day enforcement
Exactly, they target protesters, which makes it unconsitutional.
Standing as a wall of humanity?
Sounds like an assembly. Protected by the first amendment.
The rule is used because for pre-arranged arrests of protestors (this is worked out with the Park Police by the protestors in advance), they have to write something down on the citation
Then they should just be honest and write down "arrested for exercising their first amendment rights".
Yes, you have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to actually obstruct the normal functioning of government or the activities of your fellow citizens, who also have rights to exercise.
Protesting is a normal function of our government and an activity of citizens. Your "right" to get to the grocery store in a timely manner is not protected by the Constitution. My right to assemble in public and petition for a redress of grievances is. Exercising my constitutionally protected rights trumps your inconvenience every time.
Censorship is other people deciding for you what you should watch. Deciding for myself what I don't want to watch poses no conflict with that position at all.
I strongly support the right of Orson Scott Card to advocate for his beliefs. I strongly support the right of filmmakers to make any film they want. I also strongly support the right of individuals to decide what they do and do not want to support with their money. If this is not tolerance, what is?
Midnight in Paris is a Woody Allen movie. His wife was 19 when they met, and they seem to be a happy couple to this day. While he shouldn't have cheated on Mia Farrow, I fully endorce two sexually mature individuals discovering attraction and forging a relationship that works for them.
The Piano? Haven't seen it, and I can't find anything scandalous about Jane Campion.
Movies I like:
Contact Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail Blazing Saddles Jurassic Park The Princess Bride Ghostbusters Goonies Back to the Future Beetlejuice South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut Shaun of the Dead Up Good Will Hunting Wargames A Beautiful Mind Waynes World The Life Aquatic Pootie Tang Night of the Living Dead Airplane!
That last one's a gimme. David Zucker is a right wing douchebag, and no I won't see any of his current movies or pay for the old ones for that reason.
Enders Game could be the best movie ever, Orson Scott Card is not getting a dime of my money.
Re:The only thing that would make sense...
on
The Silk Road Is Back
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The technology was not what got the Silk Road raided. The technology is fine, it's user error that's the problem. Ulbricht failed to fully compartmentalize his Dread Pirate Roberts identity, and that's what got him busted.
The government is small and weak compared to the people it is working for. The problem is, the government works for the.1% of the people who control the economy.
Why not? Rules are the only interesting part of sport. Which team won which game is just trivia. What rules make a game fair and interesting, now that's a debate you can sink your teeth into.
They don't have separate men's and women's. The main FIDE rating list includes both men and women players. The thing is, there are just not that many highly rated women players.
Which is how it should be for every sport. Let everyone play by the same rules, and win or lose according to their actual ability. In any other field saying "You're good at X, for a girl" is considered an insult. But isn't that exactly what we're saying to women when we create separate leagues for them?
But if anyone that wants to protest can do anything they want, it would make it difficult for DC to function as a city.
That's kind of the point of protests. If constant protests aren't a huge pain in the ass to deal with, what leverage do the protesters have? Remember the Montgomery Bus Boycott? That made it difficult for Mongomery to function as a city. That was the whole point.
The "arrests" are usually for violation of the "Kodak Moment Rule"; basically, you can't stop in one place so long you obstruct others trying to take photos.
Because tourism is more important than exercising our First Amendment rights? No. If I have a right to be there for any reason, I have a right to be there to protest. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the establishment is like the borg. They rapidly adapt to any attacks. This is why we see employers screen for criminal offenses, to scare people who need to be employable so they won't speak out. And why we have to invest in the stock market to have any chance of retiring well, so if we speak out against wall street, we're shooting our own foot. etc. etc.
Grassroots? It was astroturf from the beginning. The only reason it was successful was because it's entire goal was to make the powerful more powerful. This is not any sort of resistance movement at all.
A much better example would be the civil rights movement or womens sufferage movement.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I noticed that for sure. Why does that make it satire? It looks to me like a non-ironic allegorical account of the benefits of fascism.
$500 hammers.
only instead of traffic light intersections it has roundabouts. What this means in practice is that using the major roads it's possible to get everywhere quickly and easily, even in rush hour you don't get caught for too long.
Roundabouts break down in high traffic. When a roundabout is at full capacity, you have to throw yourself into moving traffic without regard for safety. At least traffic lights give everyone a chance to go.
To understand the movie Starship Troopers it is crucial that you realise the _entire_ movie is propaganda for the Earth's military government. It is clear at the start, and the finish, but it never stops being that a propaganda show.
Thank you. I'm glad someone else realizes this. Most people who do, think the movie must be satire because who would make such obvious fascist propganda as entertainment? But there's nothing satirical, there is no winking acknowldegement of how awful it is.
Starship Troopers *is* the embodiment of totalitarianism, but it's not satire. It's a straight up endorsement.
Just because it mimics American militarism doesn't make it a parody of American militarism. It's an apologia for American militarism.
How is it obvious that it is satire? It looks like a whole hearted endorcement of fascism. What evidence is there that it is not?
I think people who think ST is satire are simply uncomfortable with watching fascist propaganda, and decide that it's not really fascist propaganda to make themselves more comfortable.
Can you complete this sentence for me? "Starship troopers is obviously satire because..."
Fair enough. My apologies.
Are you fucking kidding me? Archaeologists get excited digging through ancient garbage. How can there be any doubt that relics from the birth of the internet won't be incredibly informative to future civilizations?
It's attitudes like yours that caused so many silent films or early episodes of Doctor Who to be lost to time.
Can't you compile Android from scratch and install it on your phone?
All basic research is in the national interest. It provides the best ROI of any investment a country can make.
Is he going to use his car to drive around town with a megaphone ranting about niggers and jews? If so, and you knew about it, then you were wrong to support him.
You have the right to peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Shutting the city down isn't peaceable.
Non-violent resistance is peaceable.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott was entirely different. The blacks in the city simply didn't ride the buses, but the buses ran just the same, the city functioned just fine, albeit without those bus fares
Making the bus system unprofitable disrupts the city just as surely as a sit-in does.
(and what could they have done? ordered people to ride the bus?)
They could have levied a tax to support the bus system. Ironically that would have been far more constitutional than the anti-first amendment tactics you are defending.
Now, if they had instead chosen to lay down in front of the buses, that would have been very different, and reasonable law enforcement action would have been justified and uncontroversial.
Laying in front of traffic for any reason is illegal, for good reason. When you pass laws that only apply to protesters, that's when you fall afoul of the first amendment. Anywhere that I am allowed to stand on the sidewalk, I must be allowed to stand on the sidewalk with a protest sign with a few thousand of my closest friends. Any time a behavior is permitted, but then not permitted in the context of a protest, is a violation of our first amendment rights.
And the "Kodak Moment Rule" isn't actually used for day-to-day enforcement
Exactly, they target protesters, which makes it unconsitutional.
Standing as a wall of humanity?
Sounds like an assembly. Protected by the first amendment.
The rule is used because for pre-arranged arrests of protestors (this is worked out with the Park Police by the protestors in advance), they have to write something down on the citation
Then they should just be honest and write down "arrested for exercising their first amendment rights".
Yes, you have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to actually obstruct the normal functioning of government or the activities of your fellow citizens, who also have rights to exercise.
Protesting is a normal function of our government and an activity of citizens. Your "right" to get to the grocery store in a timely manner is not protected by the Constitution. My right to assemble in public and petition for a redress of grievances is. Exercising my constitutionally protected rights trumps your inconvenience every time.
Censorship is other people deciding for you what you should watch. Deciding for myself what I don't want to watch poses no conflict with that position at all.
I strongly support the right of Orson Scott Card to advocate for his beliefs. I strongly support the right of filmmakers to make any film they want. I also strongly support the right of individuals to decide what they do and do not want to support with their money. If this is not tolerance, what is?
Midnight in Paris is a Woody Allen movie. His wife was 19 when they met, and they seem to be a happy couple to this day. While he shouldn't have cheated on Mia Farrow, I fully endorce two sexually mature individuals discovering attraction and forging a relationship that works for them.
The Piano? Haven't seen it, and I can't find anything scandalous about Jane Campion.
Movies I like:
Contact
Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail
Blazing Saddles
Jurassic Park
The Princess Bride
Ghostbusters
Goonies
Back to the Future
Beetlejuice
South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut
Shaun of the Dead
Up
Good Will Hunting
Wargames
A Beautiful Mind
Waynes World
The Life Aquatic
Pootie Tang
Night of the Living Dead
Airplane!
That last one's a gimme. David Zucker is a right wing douchebag, and no I won't see any of his current movies or pay for the old ones for that reason.
Also, support the theme of the movie, which is inclusiveness and understanding.
Inclusiveness and understanding of what exactly? Genocide?
Rewarding those who rewarded OSC is bad enough. The less money this movie makes, the less likely OSC will get movie deals in the future.
Enders Game could be the best movie ever, Orson Scott Card is not getting a dime of my money.
The technology was not what got the Silk Road raided. The technology is fine, it's user error that's the problem. Ulbricht failed to fully compartmentalize his Dread Pirate Roberts identity, and that's what got him busted.
The government is small and weak compared to the people it is working for. The problem is, the government works for the .1% of the people who control the economy.
Why not? Rules are the only interesting part of sport. Which team won which game is just trivia. What rules make a game fair and interesting, now that's a debate you can sink your teeth into.
They don't have separate men's and women's. The main FIDE rating list includes both men and women players. The thing is, there are just not that many highly rated women players.
Which is how it should be for every sport. Let everyone play by the same rules, and win or lose according to their actual ability. In any other field saying "You're good at X, for a girl" is considered an insult. But isn't that exactly what we're saying to women when we create separate leagues for them?
But if anyone that wants to protest can do anything they want, it would make it difficult for DC to function as a city.
That's kind of the point of protests. If constant protests aren't a huge pain in the ass to deal with, what leverage do the protesters have? Remember the Montgomery Bus Boycott? That made it difficult for Mongomery to function as a city. That was the whole point.
The "arrests" are usually for violation of the "Kodak Moment Rule"; basically, you can't stop in one place so long you obstruct others trying to take photos.
Because tourism is more important than exercising our First Amendment rights? No. If I have a right to be there for any reason, I have a right to be there to protest. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the establishment is like the borg. They rapidly adapt to any attacks. This is why we see employers screen for criminal offenses, to scare people who need to be employable so they won't speak out. And why we have to invest in the stock market to have any chance of retiring well, so if we speak out against wall street, we're shooting our own foot. etc. etc.
Grassroots? It was astroturf from the beginning. The only reason it was successful was because it's entire goal was to make the powerful more powerful. This is not any sort of resistance movement at all.
A much better example would be the civil rights movement or womens sufferage movement.