You are just restarting the same BS. Its not that I don't understand your point, its just your point and evidence are BS.
The current mass shooting crisis is many decades newer than civil rights.
Your "no wars" argument ignores the last 15 years of history.
The nerdy bullied kids looking for revenge aren't the KKK types.
Uh, no, not civil rights, nor bullying. These shootings are generally not racially motived. Bullying has been with us forever.
Yes on the media to an extent. The media today has a political agenda so the news is presented in a manner to further that agenda, not simply report. Copy cats are a part of the problem and they are a price the media accepts for furthering their agenda and for greater ratings.
The school violence is not coming from the disappearing KKK types. It is coming from bullied nerd types, and the bullied nerd types used to know better and react in a more civilized manner.
The pro-ban researcher explicitly says the key was banning high capacity magazines Which was part of the assault weapons ban.
Yet still does not explain why the rifle should be banned if it only has a low capacity magazine. People are largely calling for rifle bans, not high capacity magazine bans.
That sound is the point sailing over your head. Congress banned the CDC and other federal agencies from studying gun violence as that poster suggested.
Strange, the US Dept of Justice was still able to analyze the federal ban and find it ineffective.
Apparently you didn't read your own citation. The pro-ban researcher explicitly says the key was banning high capacity magazines not the guns themselves. Put a low capacity hunting magazine into that "assault weapon" and how is it different from a semiautomatic hunting rifle?
Your pro-gun researcher also plays bait-and-switch games. "Assault weapons" are actually used for few "mass shootings". According to a recent Mother Jones article 2/3 of such shootings use pistols. As for the remaining 1/3 its evenly split between rifles and shotguns and only some of the rifles are "assault weapons".
The FBI, Homeland Security and every other policing agency at the federal level should be studying this phenom and trying to figure out why and how to address it.
Guess what Congress explicitly banned?
Guess what ban the US Department of Justice said was ineffective? Did removing flash suppressors and pistol grips make the post-ban guns any less lethal? Is an "assault weapon" with a low capacity hunting magazine any different than a semiautomatic hunting rifle that is not on anyone's ban list?
I don't think folks have thought much about what an effective universal background check would look like. We can't just look at their criminal record. Most (all?) of these shooters didn't have one.
That why people are suggesting raising the minimum age to 21. So there is some time on the clock for that adult criminal and mental history check.
We'd have to start looking at their mental health records (which would discourage anyone who likes guns from seeking help) and their social media posting.
Not all people who come into contact with the mental health system are doing so voluntarily. Are the extreme anti-social and/or violent going in voluntarily, or is it the suicidal going in voluntarily. Harm others vs harm self may come to the attention of the system in different ways. We need to update the privacy laws.
If we're going to go that far that means we have to have someone make decisions about who's allowed to have guns and who isn't. Are we going to do jury trials for every failed background check?
Not all judicial proceedings get a jury. But yes, judges, that is their job, to decide who has their constitutional rights set aside. Plus a lot of those background check failures will result from criminal convictions, an event where a judge/jury has already spoken.
Never mind that numerous studies have been done showing that video games and movies don't have any impact on the behavior of normal, well-adjusted people, only people who already have mental illnesses or mental deficiences to start with, oh no!
The same can be said for guns. Mental illness seems to be a recurring theme in these mass shootings, well the ones that are not terrorism related.
If Trump is going to ignore science on so many other issues then why the ever-loving fuck wouldn't he ignore the science on this issue, too?
Ignoring science in this debate is common on both sides. For example the AR-15 being no more lethal than other semiautomatic rifles that are not part of anyone's "assault weapon" list. Put a low capacity hunting magazine into an AR-15 and how is it different from the semiautomatic hunting rifles? Both sides are picking the respective scapegoats.
The real problem is likely in US social policy. We've had magazine fed semiautomatics for nearly a century. The civilian AR-15 for 50 years or so. Something changed, it wasn't the guns.
In Heinlein's universe there was no barrier to service beyond volunteering, no physical limitations, no philosophical limitations beyond being will to risk one's life for society. And the voting franchise was for when discharged from service, so it applied to civilians not those in the military. Your "what if" is not the world or system that Heinlein described.
> In the Hillary case they paid a strategic intelligence company who offered a former British MI6 agent with good ties to Russian intelligence to get dirt on Trump from the Russians.
Again - lying by omission.
Isn't it also known that the RNC started giving money to this strategic intelligence company to get dirt on Trump, which was then taken up by DNC and others?
The Republican never Trumper's paid for it during the primaries. Hillary and the DNC paid for it during the general election.
Where is the lie by omission. There is no refutation of solicitation by Trump nor Hillary. You merely identify a third group. The third group adds to the first two, it does not exonerate either of the first two.
I'm only arguing that the fictional government didn't go out of its way to make every job hazardous; where they had non-hazardous jobs, people got posted to non-hazardous jobs.
I have a faint recollection that when the construction service was mentioned it was pointed out that a certain casualty rate was deemed acceptable. That technology and procedure could have perhaps reduced the rate but it was deemed acceptable as is so that volunteering for the construction service would also mean putting your life on the line. Yes there were jobs that were safe, but I think the point was that at the time of volunteering you had to face a non-remote chance of death regardless of the manner of your service, construction or military, before any particular job was assigned. So a safe job was a pleasant surprise long after volunteering.
Collusion and collaboration isn't necessary - all that is necessary is INTENT to solicit foreign aid/items of value for an election campaign - that itself is illegal and crime, and has already been demonstrated by the emails between them.
Are you referring to Trump or Hillary soliciting? Because both solicited information from Russian sources through British intermediaries.
In the Hillary case they paid a strategic intelligence company who offered a former British MI6 agent with good ties to Russian intelligence to get dirt on Trump from the Russians.
In the Trump case a British publicist wanted to set up a meeting with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have dirt on Hillary.
Focus group racism: "I'm not racist, but my audience are, and I know this book/movie/advertisment will sell better if I can keep a white guy on the poster."
Not what happened. He had an agenda, a message, that he wanted to deliver. He admits to wanting the most aryan SS looking actor he could find to portray the hero in order to deliver that message. It wasn't about making the movie more marketable, it was about delivering Vehhoeven's message. Thus it was a racist act by Verhoeven to attain his own personal goal. It was not a cynical racist accommodation made to the audience.
He intentionally substituted the most aryan SS-compatible looking actor he could find for a hispanic character. Again, this was intentional. That was a racist move.
If you think so, you totally don't get what Verhoeven was trying to do.
As I explained in my first post Verhoeven had an agenda, he had a message he wanted to deliver, he used the title "Starship Trooper" as the vehicle to deliver that message. The actual content and message of the book was irrelevant, only the message he wanted to deliver important.
This is the problem with satire, it often goes over the heads of the literal-minded.
Actually you are the one having the swoosh moment. The topic is not satire. The topic is how the movie deviates from the book, how the book and Heinlein is misrepresented. I've studied history, seen and discussed "Triumph of the Will" in political science classes. Verhoeven was quite transparent to me while watching the movie in the theatre. The fact remains, he misrepresents Heinlein and the book, which is the topic under discussion. That Verhoeven made a racist substitution to further his agenda makes it no less racist.
I'll admit that I haven't read Starship Troopers, but I've read other Heinlein books, and he has a fair amount of overt racism and sexism in every book of his that I have read.
Sexist? In this 1950s book Starship Trooper he had women serve in combat and argued that the number of pull-ups and pushups one could do does not define one's worth in the military. That many roles do not require brute strength and that women can excel in military leadership and in some military roles their physical differences made them, on average, superior to men (for example combat pilots).
Racist? The central character and hero of this 1950s book Starship Trooper is Juan "Johnny" Rico. A resident of Buenos Aires, Argentina of Philippine descent.
Conformance was only required during service. After service no conformance was required, an enfranchised citizen was free to believe and vote however they cared to.
Yes, nevermind the indoctrination they would have went through in said service, which starts out by deliberately breaking them down as individuals and rebuilding them into literal tools. So what if a handful of them become peacenicks after their service - not only will they be in a minority, they'll have a reflexive desire to "support the troops" since they were one.
Reality shows that veterans hold a wide variety of opinions and political beliefs after service. Service is not some sort of lifelong brainwashing. "Supporting the troops" is not synonymous with "supporting the war". A WW2 veteran family member (combat infantryman badge, purple heart, bronze star, presidential unit citation) opposed the Vietnam war and supported the Vietnam troops and veterans. During the Persian Gulf war he thought we shouldn't be fighting over oil, and supported the troops. The villains in his mind were in the political leadership, those that decide upon war, not those who end up fighting wars.
Verhoeven also injects racism where there is none, again part of his agenda that has nothing to do with the actual book. John Rico, aka Juan Rico, is not white, not an "aryan", he is of Philippine descent if I remember correct.
That's not racism.
He intentionally substituted the most aryan SS-compatible looking actor he could find for a hispanic character. Again, this was intentional. That was a racist move.
I agree it isn't a single fascist leader, but the military effectively gets to decide who can vote.
No. The only obstacle to service was volunteering. Service is not required to be military in nature, there are also those doing hazardous construction (on moons/asteroids/etc). No one volunteering was considered "unfit" for service. If a person had a disability there were to be somehow accommodated and allowed to contribute and serve, and of course be at risk. The military could decide who could serve in the infantry, who could serve as ship's crew, etc... but they could not deny all types of service to a volunteer, they had to find some accommodating role somewhere.
Those are people who have gone through training where they are taught to follow orders without question (for the safety of themselves and others), that their enemies (militarily or politically) are not people, and that the military is important. Anyone who doesn't learn these lessons is unlikely to survive. This makes for something very similar to having a society run by the military.
No. These people are free to believe whatever they chose and free to vote accordingly once discharged from service. Following orders in a chain of command is not something that continues after service. Look at the real world, there is no shortage of people who served honorably and well that were quite critical of the military after discharge, there is no shortage of veterans on the political left or right. Military service does not turn people into mindless robots, it generally teaches several things. People can accomplish far more than they think they can. A group coordinating their actions can accomplish more than a group of people acting individually. Bad sh*t happens and you just have to work your way through it.
Answering a response made things a little clearer...
In Heinlein's Starship Trooper universe voting is an "earned" right, not a "birth" right. It is earned by volunteering and completing service that is hazardous, military or construction. Anyone may serve and ultimately attain the right to vote, accommodations are made for those with disabilities so that they may serve. The only obstacle to service is volunteering. The core idea is that through service you risked your life for others, this "earns" you the right to vote.
Once honorably discharged from service a person now has the right to vote. They are free to vote in any manner they chose. The government will follow the majority of the voters. There is no fascist dictate from government. The enfranchised elite have "earned" the right to believe whatever they chose to in a political power sense, their majority has "earned" the right to direct the government. The voters are in control.
Note that absolutely nowhere in the book was it suggested that Rico was American. For that matter, I can't think of any particular character that was American.
Verhoeven might be confused about the location of Buenos Aires.:-)
Don't you have to complete your enlistment to obtain political power? If so, then anyone can enlist but only those who conform are enfranchised.
Conformance was only required during service. After service no conformance was required, an enfranchised citizen was free to believe and vote however they cared to. And society would go in whatever direction the majority of the enfranchised citizens believed to be best. The voters were in control. That fact that voters had to demonstrate they would risk their lives for others, through military or hazardous construction service, is not evidence of fascism. Elitist is really a far better description. Fascism dictates what is proper to believe, what direction government will go. The enfranchised elite were under no such limitations, they had "earned" the right to believe whatever they chose to, their majority had "earned" the right to direct the government.
Yes, the quote is saying the book has elements of both, has portions that can be described as either. That both these labels, elitist liberal and libertarian, are more accurate than the third label of fascist.
"he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book" well not that shocked.
Verhoeven had an agenda and searched for a vehicle to present that agenda it just so happened the name of the book seemed a good vehicle for him.
From wiki: "Ken Macleod argues that the book does not actually advocate fascism because anybody capable of understanding the oath of Federal Service is able to enlist and thereby obtain political power. Macleod states that Heinlein's books are consistently liberal, but cover a spectrum from democratic to elitist forms of liberalism, Starship Troopers being on the latter end of the spectrum. It has been argued that Heinlein's militarism is more libertarian than fascist, and that this trend is also present in Heinlein's other popular books of the period, such as Stranger in a Strange Land (1961) and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966)."
*** Spoler Alert ***
Verhoeven also injects racism where there is none, again part of his agenda that has nothing to do with the actual book. John Rico, aka Juan Rico, is not white, not an "aryan", he is of Philippine descent if I remember correct. He is obviously portrayed as Hispanic on the book cover in pre-movie printings.
IMDB rating is based on user reviews, not critics. Bright got terrible critic reviews, but the user reviews are pretty good. You can see both if you go to Metacritic: 2.9/10 critic reviews, 7.3/10 user reviews. I'd personally give it around 7/10 as well.
Back in the day the movie critic at the CBS affiliate in New York City didn't like "Star Wars". That's "Epsiode 4: A New Hope", the first movie. He trashed it on its opening, gave it a 2 on a scale of 5. This wasn't attacking the movie as lacking in the artsy oscar nominee sense, it was attacking it as stupid and not-fun.
A few years later I was flipping channels and saw this same movie reviewer on one of the second tier stations. I guess Star Wars wasn't his only mistake.
This incident left me with a certain skepticism regarding professional movie critics.
Slashdot Mirror
You are just restarting the same BS. Its not that I don't understand your point, its just your point and evidence are BS. The current mass shooting crisis is many decades newer than civil rights.
Your "no wars" argument ignores the last 15 years of history.
The nerdy bullied kids looking for revenge aren't the KKK types.
Uh, no, not civil rights, nor bullying. These shootings are generally not racially motived. Bullying has been with us forever.
Yes on the media to an extent. The media today has a political agenda so the news is presented in a manner to further that agenda, not simply report. Copy cats are a part of the problem and they are a price the media accepts for furthering their agenda and for greater ratings.
The school violence is not coming from the disappearing KKK types. It is coming from bullied nerd types, and the bullied nerd types used to know better and react in a more civilized manner.
The pro-ban researcher explicitly says the key was banning high capacity magazines Which was part of the assault weapons ban.
Yet still does not explain why the rifle should be banned if it only has a low capacity magazine. People are largely calling for rifle bans, not high capacity magazine bans.
That sound is the point sailing over your head. Congress banned the CDC and other federal agencies from studying gun violence as that poster suggested.
Strange, the US Dept of Justice was still able to analyze the federal ban and find it ineffective.
and found to have zero effect Studies listed here found an effect from the assault weapons ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Apparently you didn't read your own citation. The pro-ban researcher explicitly says the key was banning high capacity magazines not the guns themselves. Put a low capacity hunting magazine into that "assault weapon" and how is it different from a semiautomatic hunting rifle?
Your pro-gun researcher also plays bait-and-switch games. "Assault weapons" are actually used for few "mass shootings". According to a recent Mother Jones article 2/3 of such shootings use pistols. As for the remaining 1/3 its evenly split between rifles and shotguns and only some of the rifles are "assault weapons".
The FBI, Homeland Security and every other policing agency at the federal level should be studying this phenom and trying to figure out why and how to address it.
Guess what Congress explicitly banned?
Guess what ban the US Department of Justice said was ineffective? Did removing flash suppressors and pistol grips make the post-ban guns any less lethal? Is an "assault weapon" with a low capacity hunting magazine any different than a semiautomatic hunting rifle that is not on anyone's ban list?
I don't think folks have thought much about what an effective universal background check would look like. We can't just look at their criminal record. Most (all?) of these shooters didn't have one.
That why people are suggesting raising the minimum age to 21. So there is some time on the clock for that adult criminal and mental history check.
We'd have to start looking at their mental health records (which would discourage anyone who likes guns from seeking help) and their social media posting.
Not all people who come into contact with the mental health system are doing so voluntarily. Are the extreme anti-social and/or violent going in voluntarily, or is it the suicidal going in voluntarily. Harm others vs harm self may come to the attention of the system in different ways. We need to update the privacy laws.
If we're going to go that far that means we have to have someone make decisions about who's allowed to have guns and who isn't. Are we going to do jury trials for every failed background check?
Not all judicial proceedings get a jury. But yes, judges, that is their job, to decide who has their constitutional rights set aside. Plus a lot of those background check failures will result from criminal convictions, an event where a judge/jury has already spoken.
Never mind that numerous studies have been done showing that video games and movies don't have any impact on the behavior of normal, well-adjusted people, only people who already have mental illnesses or mental deficiences to start with, oh no!
The same can be said for guns. Mental illness seems to be a recurring theme in these mass shootings, well the ones that are not terrorism related.
If Trump is going to ignore science on so many other issues then why the ever-loving fuck wouldn't he ignore the science on this issue, too?
Ignoring science in this debate is common on both sides. For example the AR-15 being no more lethal than other semiautomatic rifles that are not part of anyone's "assault weapon" list. Put a low capacity hunting magazine into an AR-15 and how is it different from the semiautomatic hunting rifles? Both sides are picking the respective scapegoats.
The real problem is likely in US social policy. We've had magazine fed semiautomatics for nearly a century. The civilian AR-15 for 50 years or so. Something changed, it wasn't the guns.
In Heinlein's universe there was no barrier to service beyond volunteering, no physical limitations, no philosophical limitations beyond being will to risk one's life for society. And the voting franchise was for when discharged from service, so it applied to civilians not those in the military. Your "what if" is not the world or system that Heinlein described.
> In the Hillary case they paid a strategic intelligence company who offered a former British MI6 agent with good ties to Russian intelligence to get dirt on Trump from the Russians.
Again - lying by omission. Isn't it also known that the RNC started giving money to this strategic intelligence company to get dirt on Trump, which was then taken up by DNC and others?
The Republican never Trumper's paid for it during the primaries. Hillary and the DNC paid for it during the general election.
Where is the lie by omission. There is no refutation of solicitation by Trump nor Hillary. You merely identify a third group. The third group adds to the first two, it does not exonerate either of the first two.
I'm only arguing that the fictional government didn't go out of its way to make every job hazardous; where they had non-hazardous jobs, people got posted to non-hazardous jobs.
I have a faint recollection that when the construction service was mentioned it was pointed out that a certain casualty rate was deemed acceptable. That technology and procedure could have perhaps reduced the rate but it was deemed acceptable as is so that volunteering for the construction service would also mean putting your life on the line. Yes there were jobs that were safe, but I think the point was that at the time of volunteering you had to face a non-remote chance of death regardless of the manner of your service, construction or military, before any particular job was assigned. So a safe job was a pleasant surprise long after volunteering.
Collusion and collaboration isn't necessary - all that is necessary is INTENT to solicit foreign aid/items of value for an election campaign - that itself is illegal and crime, and has already been demonstrated by the emails between them.
Are you referring to Trump or Hillary soliciting? Because both solicited information from Russian sources through British intermediaries.
In the Hillary case they paid a strategic intelligence company who offered a former British MI6 agent with good ties to Russian intelligence to get dirt on Trump from the Russians.
In the Trump case a British publicist wanted to set up a meeting with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have dirt on Hillary.
Buenos Aires. He's from Argentina.
Yes, and of Philippine descent.
Focus group racism: "I'm not racist, but my audience are, and I know this book/movie/advertisment will sell better if I can keep a white guy on the poster."
Not what happened. He had an agenda, a message, that he wanted to deliver. He admits to wanting the most aryan SS looking actor he could find to portray the hero in order to deliver that message. It wasn't about making the movie more marketable, it was about delivering Vehhoeven's message. Thus it was a racist act by Verhoeven to attain his own personal goal. It was not a cynical racist accommodation made to the audience.
"move" not "movie". Not a racist movie, a racist move, a racist act, by Verhoeven.
If you think so, you totally don't get what Verhoeven was trying to do.
As I explained in my first post Verhoeven had an agenda, he had a message he wanted to deliver, he used the title "Starship Trooper" as the vehicle to deliver that message. The actual content and message of the book was irrelevant, only the message he wanted to deliver important.
This is the problem with satire, it often goes over the heads of the literal-minded.
Actually you are the one having the swoosh moment. The topic is not satire. The topic is how the movie deviates from the book, how the book and Heinlein is misrepresented. I've studied history, seen and discussed "Triumph of the Will" in political science classes. Verhoeven was quite transparent to me while watching the movie in the theatre. The fact remains, he misrepresents Heinlein and the book, which is the topic under discussion. That Verhoeven made a racist substitution to further his agenda makes it no less racist.
I'll admit that I haven't read Starship Troopers, but I've read other Heinlein books, and he has a fair amount of overt racism and sexism in every book of his that I have read.
Sexist? In this 1950s book Starship Trooper he had women serve in combat and argued that the number of pull-ups and pushups one could do does not define one's worth in the military. That many roles do not require brute strength and that women can excel in military leadership and in some military roles their physical differences made them, on average, superior to men (for example combat pilots).
Racist? The central character and hero of this 1950s book Starship Trooper is Juan "Johnny" Rico. A resident of Buenos Aires, Argentina of Philippine descent.
Yes, nevermind the indoctrination they would have went through in said service, which starts out by deliberately breaking them down as individuals and rebuilding them into literal tools. So what if a handful of them become peacenicks after their service - not only will they be in a minority, they'll have a reflexive desire to "support the troops" since they were one.
Reality shows that veterans hold a wide variety of opinions and political beliefs after service. Service is not some sort of lifelong brainwashing. "Supporting the troops" is not synonymous with "supporting the war". A WW2 veteran family member (combat infantryman badge, purple heart, bronze star, presidential unit citation) opposed the Vietnam war and supported the Vietnam troops and veterans. During the Persian Gulf war he thought we shouldn't be fighting over oil, and supported the troops. The villains in his mind were in the political leadership, those that decide upon war, not those who end up fighting wars.
That's not racism.
He intentionally substituted the most aryan SS-compatible looking actor he could find for a hispanic character. Again, this was intentional. That was a racist move.
I agree it isn't a single fascist leader, but the military effectively gets to decide who can vote.
No. The only obstacle to service was volunteering. Service is not required to be military in nature, there are also those doing hazardous construction (on moons/asteroids/etc). No one volunteering was considered "unfit" for service. If a person had a disability there were to be somehow accommodated and allowed to contribute and serve, and of course be at risk. The military could decide who could serve in the infantry, who could serve as ship's crew, etc ... but they could not deny all types of service to a volunteer, they had to find some accommodating role somewhere.
Those are people who have gone through training where they are taught to follow orders without question (for the safety of themselves and others), that their enemies (militarily or politically) are not people, and that the military is important. Anyone who doesn't learn these lessons is unlikely to survive. This makes for something very similar to having a society run by the military.
No. These people are free to believe whatever they chose and free to vote accordingly once discharged from service. Following orders in a chain of command is not something that continues after service. Look at the real world, there is no shortage of people who served honorably and well that were quite critical of the military after discharge, there is no shortage of veterans on the political left or right. Military service does not turn people into mindless robots, it generally teaches several things. People can accomplish far more than they think they can. A group coordinating their actions can accomplish more than a group of people acting individually. Bad sh*t happens and you just have to work your way through it.
Answering a response made things a little clearer ...
In Heinlein's Starship Trooper universe voting is an "earned" right, not a "birth" right. It is earned by volunteering and completing service that is hazardous, military or construction. Anyone may serve and ultimately attain the right to vote, accommodations are made for those with disabilities so that they may serve. The only obstacle to service is volunteering. The core idea is that through service you risked your life for others, this "earns" you the right to vote.
Once honorably discharged from service a person now has the right to vote. They are free to vote in any manner they chose. The government will follow the majority of the voters. There is no fascist dictate from government. The enfranchised elite have "earned" the right to believe whatever they chose to in a political power sense, their majority has "earned" the right to direct the government. The voters are in control.
Note that absolutely nowhere in the book was it suggested that Rico was American. For that matter, I can't think of any particular character that was American.
Verhoeven might be confused about the location of Buenos Aires. :-)
Don't you have to complete your enlistment to obtain political power? If so, then anyone can enlist but only those who conform are enfranchised.
Conformance was only required during service. After service no conformance was required, an enfranchised citizen was free to believe and vote however they cared to. And society would go in whatever direction the majority of the enfranchised citizens believed to be best. The voters were in control. That fact that voters had to demonstrate they would risk their lives for others, through military or hazardous construction service, is not evidence of fascism. Elitist is really a far better description. Fascism dictates what is proper to believe, what direction government will go. The enfranchised elite were under no such limitations, they had "earned" the right to believe whatever they chose to, their majority had "earned" the right to direct the government.
"Libertarian" \= Liberal.
Yes, the quote is saying the book has elements of both, has portions that can be described as either. That both these labels, elitist liberal and libertarian, are more accurate than the third label of fascist.
"he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book" well not that shocked.
Verhoeven had an agenda and searched for a vehicle to present that agenda it just so happened the name of the book seemed a good vehicle for him.
From wiki: "Ken Macleod argues that the book does not actually advocate fascism because anybody capable of understanding the oath of Federal Service is able to enlist and thereby obtain political power. Macleod states that Heinlein's books are consistently liberal, but cover a spectrum from democratic to elitist forms of liberalism, Starship Troopers being on the latter end of the spectrum. It has been argued that Heinlein's militarism is more libertarian than fascist, and that this trend is also present in Heinlein's other popular books of the period, such as Stranger in a Strange Land (1961) and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966)."
*** Spoler Alert *** Verhoeven also injects racism where there is none, again part of his agenda that has nothing to do with the actual book. John Rico, aka Juan Rico, is not white, not an "aryan", he is of Philippine descent if I remember correct. He is obviously portrayed as Hispanic on the book cover in pre-movie printings.
IMDB rating is based on user reviews, not critics. Bright got terrible critic reviews, but the user reviews are pretty good. You can see both if you go to Metacritic: 2.9/10 critic reviews, 7.3/10 user reviews. I'd personally give it around 7/10 as well.
Back in the day the movie critic at the CBS affiliate in New York City didn't like "Star Wars". That's "Epsiode 4: A New Hope", the first movie. He trashed it on its opening, gave it a 2 on a scale of 5. This wasn't attacking the movie as lacking in the artsy oscar nominee sense, it was attacking it as stupid and not-fun.
A few years later I was flipping channels and saw this same movie reviewer on one of the second tier stations. I guess Star Wars wasn't his only mistake.
This incident left me with a certain skepticism regarding professional movie critics.