Have any of you actually considered the children's interests? For fuck's sake! I'm sure that all of the authoratarian control freaks of parents want to decide what content their children can see. But hasn't anyone considered what the children themselves want? I know the legal discrimination involved here, but on a purely ideological level, shouldn't children have the right to think for them selves? Is deciding what content they can see "good parenting"? Do any of you actually think that they will be better at making their own decisions as an adult, when they aren't even allowed to see, let alone judge questionable material as children?
Before you reply by simply attacking my character (as some of you did last time I posted this argument), I'll explain my situation. I am a twenty one years old, I earn 80k a year, and I own my own house. I've learned to thrive by educating myself and pursuing my goals. I'm perfectly capable of seeing whatever I want legally. But I'm still young enough to actually remember what it was like when I couldn't. I had every intellectual capability of many who could, but I was censored constantly... and there wasn't a damned (legal) thing to do about it either. It's kind of easy to oppress a class of people who can't vote, isn't it?
I feel that the greatest hinderance I ever encountered in my intellectual and ethical development was controlling parental interference. It's bad enough that they can tell you what you must do, or see (i.e. their church, their political views, etc...) But the ability to decide what a child cannot see, read or learn is despicable. I really can't trust someone who advocates giving parents more power! Yes, I think that parents should be active in raising their children. They should be teachers, role, models, and when needed counselors, or confidants. I even agree that punishment is a necessary part of raising a child. However, I don't think that a parent should ever forbid a child from anything the first ammendment would protect for an adult. Why do I say this? Am I a terrible anarchist for believing in free thought, free speech, and freedom from other's (even one's own parents') religions? It's because I remember.
I say tell your parents to go fuck themselves if they decide that they should control what you can see, read, or think. Ditto if they pompously "decide" which religion you believe. Tell them to go watch Dead Poet's Society.
...until long after WW2. Obviously this restriction of religious and intellectual freedoms isn't nearly so appalling, but don't you think you should at least consult those it affects -- those under 17?
...since we're posting back and forth days after everyone else has stopped.
But I agree with you about valuing the populace's health more than the corps' fiscal health. The 1st ammendment doesn't protect fraud anyways. I know that 'marketing' frequently pushes it, though.
I'm fairly familiar with this sort of issue since my mother is a doctor. I think that it would be the doctor's responsibility to refuse to treat people with drugs that he/she doesn't feel would be benificial. After all, doctors take an oath which binds them to just that.
As far as over the counter drugs... I guess people need to be responsible for their own health if they chose to take them. Normally taking such a drug will only harm the user, but you have a very good point with the antibiotics. In that case I can definately see restrictions for 'public safety' reasons.
But anyways, this entire idea is tangential to the one I was arguing. I want to see people's intellectual freedoms protected, even at the price of security. I think that anyone should be free to read what they chose, believe what (religion) they chose, and speak their views in an open forum. So, yes I can agree with drug restriction laws... but only if we're still free to debate them.
It's the rest of the 'open source community' who is ungrateful to him. Gnu is the very heart of just about any 'linux' distribution. RMS has been slaving away for about 20 years to make this possible. Those who simply jump on top of his shoulders now that his work is reaching a critical mass ought to be grateful to the FSF... Linus and ESR included.
Can you really fault a man for not wanting to be edited out of a movement for which he is the very soul?
I don't really mind corporations being able to advertise drugs... as long as others are free to say why they don't think the corporations should be. I'm not nearly so concerned about the rights of corporations as those of individuals, though. I think this issue is basically a trade off. Which do you value more, freedom or security?
Well, I can't speak for anyone else here, but I sure don't intend to quit using Linux 'because it's getting popular'. As more people use Linux it will have more support, more enterprise applications, and more games.
My beef with Windows is simple. I want something stable, and I want something free. Windows is neither. Gnu is both. That's it. I don't like rebooting every few hours, I don't like draconian end user agreements, and I don't like every word document or spreadsheet I make generating a secret ID hash in it. It's none of MS's damned business which program I used to make it, what my ethernet card # is, or what OS I have.
I will choose Free Software-high quality, privacy, and no binding agreements (except, of course, that I do not infringe upon the freedoms of others).
I've got to say, I agree with you there. The line has to be drawn somewhere. But the big difference between my views and apparently those of every other/. poster is that I feel that 1st ammendment rights should apply to everyone.
Boo hoo. You couldn't keep your children from thinking for themselves. I'm glad you couldn't, If I were them, I'd have told you to push your religious zeal on someone else.
I did. I'm 21, I'm earning 80k this year, and I own my own home. I'm sorry if my whining about not having 1st ammendment rights until this year has you in a huff.
You say it's possible to stop internet piracy? You say that it's wrong to rip the movie off? Because of hard work? I don't care about the MPAA. Make donations to Lucas or something. Oh, and your copyright laws mean nothing in China.
Have any of you actually considered the children's interests? For fuck's sake! I'm sure that all of the authoratarian control freaks of parents want to decide what content their children can see. But hasn't anyone considered what the children themselves want? I know the legal discrimination involved here, but on a purely ideological level, shouldn't children have the right to think for them selves? Is deciding what content they can see "good parenting"? Do any of you actually think that they will be better at making their own decisions as an adult, when they aren't even allowed to see, let alone judge questionable material as children?
I am a twenty one year old, perfectly capable of seeing whatever I want legally. But I'm still young enough to actually remember what it was like when I couldn't. I had every intellectual capability of many who could, but I was censored constantly... and there wasn't a damned (legal) thing to do about it either. It's kind of easy to oppress a class of people who can't vote, isn't it?
I feel that the greatest hinderance I ever encountered in my intellectual and ethical development was controlling parental interference. It's bad enough that they can tell you what you must do, or see (i.e. their church, their political views, etc...) But the ability to decide what a child cannot see, read or learn is despicable. I really can't trust someone who advocates giving parents more power! Yes, I think that parents should be active in raising their children. They should be teachers, role, models, and when needed counselors, or confidants. I even agree that punishment is a necessary part of raising a child. However, I don't think that a parent should ever forbid a child from anything the first ammendment would protect for an adult. Why do I say this? Am I a terrible anarchist for believing in free thought, free speech, and freedom from other's (even parent't) religions? It's because I remember.
I say tell your parents to go fuck themselves if they decide that they should control what you can see, read, or think. Tell them to go watch Dead Poet's Society.
I think it's a decent portrayal for a nerd.
on
Review:Cryptonomicon
·
· Score: 1
-- "But what really disturbed me was the women. They don't ever do anything more than lay the men, frustrate them by not doing so." --
Well, I actually think that's appropriate! As a nerd myself I can say that the majority of the emotional interaction I have with women fits into those catagories... nearly all the latter.
Let's see. I'll try to paint a typical scenario. Some women are fun to hang out with, or study with, or even program with (damned few). Of those to whom I never get very close, nothing is lost. But there isn't much emotional repore going on either. Now in the case that there is something more, I sometimes become friends with them, and grow closer. But if a woman is cool enough to become friends with, I'll invariably be attracted. Then, after being rejected in that way, I become sexually frustrated. Next the woman becomes frustrated at my frustration, and the friendship ends. Had the person been a male on the other hand, he would probably be a wonderful friend.
This is a pretty normal social pattern for the sort of person who knows 3 languages, and does inverse laplace transforms for the hell of it... but can't relate to women worth a damn. The geekier half of my friends have similar experiences. After a while it becomes less and less worthwhile to try to become friends, when rejection and pain are the natural results. Pursuing sex/relationships is what is left.
I don't think Neil's portrayal was sexist. It was a very astute, if unpleasant depiction of how women interact with/affect nerdy men. I think it's only by willingly blinding oneself by our culture that it is possible to deny these sorts of universal human experiences.
P.S. I'm not at all trying to say that being offended by this reaction isn't a valid female perspective. It's just that the book was written from the perspective of a socially inept man.
I think it's a decent portrayal for a nerd.
on
Review:Cryptonomicon
·
· Score: 1
But what really disturbed me was the women. They don't ever do anything more than lay the men, frustrate them by not doing so.
Well, I actually think that's appropriate! As a nerd myself I can say that the majority of the emotional interaction I have with women fits into those catagories... nearly all the latter.
Let's see. I'll try to paint a typical scenario. Some women are fun to hang out with, or study with, or even program with (damned few). Of those to whom I never get very close, nothing is lost. But there isn't much emotional repore going on either. Now in the case that there is something more, I sometimes become friends with them, and grow closer. But if a woman is cool enough to become friends with, I'll invariably be attracted. Then, after being rejected in that way, I become sexually frustrated. Next the woman becomes frustrated at my frustration, and the friendship ends. Had the person been a male on the other hand, he would probably be a wonderful friend.
This is a pretty normal social pattern for the sort of person who knows 3 languages, and does inverse laplace transforms for the hell of it... but can't relate to women worth a damn. The geekier half of my friends have similar experiences. After a while it becomes less and less worthwhile to try to become friends, when rejection and pain are the natural results. Pursuing sex/relationships is what is left.
I don't think Neil's portrayal was sexist. It was a very astute, if unpleasant depiction of how women interact with/affect nerdy men. I think it's only by willingly blinding oneself by our culture that it is possible to deny these sorts of universal human experiences.
P.S. I'm not at all trying to say that being offended by this reaction isn't a valid female perspective. It's just that the book was written from the perspective of a socially inept man.
Ok, I think this was one of the most poorly argued articles I've seen in ages. Let me start by saying that I do NOT feel that all people are equal. In some cases ONE person has been able to give more to society than the average 100. Leonardo Da Vinci would be an excellent example. In fact I feel Neitzsche is too. So since I disagree with this guy, his faulty arguments bother me all the more.
"If you get angry -- even at injustice and murder -- it will automatically and immediately transform you into an unalloyedly evil person! All of your opinions and political beliefs will suddenly and magically reverse. Every loyalty will be forsaken and your friends won't be able to draw you back. You will instantly join your sworn enemy as his close pal or apprentice. All because you let yourself get angry at his crimes."
I sure don't remember Yoda or any of the Jedi saying anything like that. They talked about controlling fear and anger, but I think Mr. Brin must have seen the unabridged version of StarWars.
"It's an ancient storytelling tradition based on abiding contempt for the masses -- one that I find odious in the works of A.E. Van Vogt, E.E. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and wherever you witness slanlike super-beings deciding the fate of billions without ever pausing to consider their wishes."
Ok, at this point I had to wonder if he even read Van Vogt's "Slan". In this book 'the masses' were wildly racist. And actually I think that the hero, a slan named Jommy Cross, DID consider the wishes of the billions around him. He considered that they all wanted to kill him because of his race! But Jommy was still remarkably non-violent. And that brings me to my next gripe...
"Remember the final scene in "Return of the Jedi," when Luke gazes into a fire to see Obi-Wan, Yoda and Vader, smiling in the flames? I found myself hoping it was Jedi Hell, for the amount of pain those three unleashed on their galaxy, and for all the damned lies they told."
Vader caused an unbelievable amount of pain. But Obi? Or Yoda!!? Didn't Obi 'defeat' Vader by refusing to fight? Can anyone remember a single instance when Yoda caused anyone pain? Can anyone remember him fight, ever? Damned lies? Are you one to be talking about this Mr. Brin? I believe Yoda was misleading, while your commentary is false. As far as Vader is concerned, I don't think that the series is 'worshiping' him. In my not so humble opinion, the focus on Anikin in TPM is to show how far a 'good' person can fall. And his Jedi Spirit in ROTJ? Lucas isn't preaching that saving his son (at the cost of his own life) made up for his earlier crimes. He's simply stating that it's never too late for redemption. This idea is debatable, but Lucas isn't to blame for it. Go after Jesus, or Gilgamesh on that one. Alright. I've got one more gripe... If Mr. Brin must try to impress us with his vocabulary, HE SHOULD READ A DAMNED DICTIONARY!!! In reading his article I got really, really SICK of seeing him misuse apotheosis. I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary entry.
Pronunciation: &-"pä-thE-'O-s&s, "a-p&-'thE-&-s&s Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural apotheoses/-"sEz/ Etymology: Late Latin, from Greek apotheOsis, from apotheoun to deify, from apo- + theos god Date: circa 1580 1 : elevation to divine status : DEIFICATION
there is also a depricated meaning of 2 : the perfect example
So I'm not sure what the heck he's trying to say when he says
"Thus few protest the apotheosis of Darth Vader -- nee Anakin Skywalker -- in "Return of the Jedi."
or
"The apotheosis of a mass murderer is exactly what it seems."
I can guess, but why would he be so pompous as to inhibit clarity?
Slashdot Mirror
especially when it's self-regulated only to keep the government from doing the same.
I'm not saying I believe that the constitution extends the 1st ammendment to minors... I'm saying it should.
If a competitor offered the movies without censorship, then capitalism might work.
Have any of you actually considered the children's interests? For fuck's sake! I'm sure that all of the authoratarian control freaks of parents want to decide what content their children can see. But hasn't anyone considered what the children themselves want? I know the legal discrimination involved here, but on a purely ideological level, shouldn't children have the right to think for them selves? Is deciding what content they can see "good parenting"? Do any of you actually think that they will be better at making their own decisions as an adult, when they aren't even allowed to see, let alone judge questionable material as children?
Before you reply by simply attacking my character (as some of you did last time I posted this argument), I'll explain my situation. I am a twenty one years old, I earn 80k a year, and I own my own house. I've learned to thrive by educating myself and pursuing my goals. I'm perfectly capable of seeing whatever I want legally. But I'm still young enough to actually remember what it was like when I couldn't. I had every intellectual capability of many who could, but I was censored constantly... and there wasn't a damned (legal) thing to do about it either. It's kind of easy to oppress a class of people who can't vote, isn't it?
I feel that the greatest hinderance I ever encountered in my intellectual and ethical development was controlling parental interference. It's bad enough that they can tell you what you must do, or see (i.e. their church, their political views, etc...) But the ability to decide what a child cannot see, read or learn is despicable. I really can't trust someone who advocates giving parents more power! Yes, I think that parents should be active in raising their children. They should be teachers, role, models, and when needed counselors, or confidants. I even agree that punishment is a necessary part of raising a child. However, I don't think that a parent should ever forbid a child from anything the first ammendment would protect for an adult. Why do I say this? Am I a terrible anarchist for believing in free thought, free speech, and freedom from other's (even one's own parents') religions? It's because I remember.
I say tell your parents to go fuck themselves if they decide that they should control what you can see, read, or think. Ditto if they pompously "decide" which religion you believe. Tell them to go watch Dead Poet's Society.
...until long after WW2. Obviously this restriction of religious and intellectual freedoms isn't nearly so appalling, but don't you think you should at least consult those it affects -- those under 17?
Some of us actually want everyone to have first ammendment rights.
That would be more constructive than whining about a good journalist just because you disagree with him.
...since we're posting back and forth days after everyone else has stopped.
But I agree with you about valuing the populace's health more than the corps' fiscal health. The 1st ammendment doesn't protect fraud anyways. I know that 'marketing' frequently pushes it, though.
I'm fairly familiar with this sort of issue since my mother is a doctor. I think that it would be the doctor's responsibility to refuse to treat people with drugs that he/she doesn't feel would be benificial. After all, doctors take an oath which binds them to just that.
As far as over the counter drugs... I guess people need to be responsible for their own health if they chose to take them. Normally taking such a drug will only harm the user, but you have a very good point with the antibiotics. In that case I can definately see restrictions for 'public safety' reasons.
But anyways, this entire idea is tangential to the one I was arguing. I want to see people's intellectual freedoms protected, even at the price of security. I think that anyone should be free to read what they chose, believe what (religion) they chose, and speak their views in an open forum. So, yes I can agree with drug restriction laws... but only if we're still free to debate them.
It's the rest of the 'open source community' who is ungrateful to him. Gnu is the very heart of just about any 'linux' distribution. RMS has been slaving away for about 20 years to make this possible. Those who simply jump on top of his shoulders now that his work is reaching a critical mass ought to be grateful to the FSF... Linus and ESR included.
Can you really fault a man for not wanting to be edited out of a movement for which he is the very soul?
I'm getting about 20% more FPS than I can just running it directly through windows!
I don't really mind corporations being able to advertise drugs... as long as others are free to say why they don't think the corporations should be. I'm not nearly so concerned about the rights of corporations as those of individuals, though. I think this issue is basically a trade off. Which do you value more, freedom or security?
Well, I can't speak for anyone else here, but I sure don't intend to quit using Linux 'because it's getting popular'. As more people use Linux it will have more support, more enterprise applications, and more games.
My beef with Windows is simple. I want something stable, and I want something free. Windows is neither. Gnu is both. That's it. I don't like rebooting every few hours, I don't like draconian end user agreements, and I don't like every word document or spreadsheet I make generating a secret ID hash in it. It's none of MS's damned business which program I used to make it, what my ethernet card # is, or what OS I have.
I will choose Free Software-high quality, privacy, and no binding agreements (except, of course, that I do not infringe upon the freedoms of others).
I've got to say, I agree with you there. The line has to be drawn somewhere. But the big difference between my views and apparently those of every other /. poster is that I feel that 1st ammendment rights should apply to everyone.
Boo hoo. You couldn't keep your children from thinking for themselves. I'm glad you couldn't, If I were them, I'd have told you to push your religious zeal on someone else.
Boo hoo. Your child doesn't let you be a psychotic control freak.
I did. I'm 21, I'm earning 80k this year, and I own my own home. I'm sorry if my whining about not having 1st ammendment rights until this year has you in a huff.
You say it's possible to stop internet piracy? You say that it's wrong to rip the movie off? Because of hard work? I don't care about the MPAA. Make donations to Lucas or something. Oh, and your copyright laws mean nothing in China.
Have any of you actually considered the children's interests? For fuck's sake! I'm sure that all of the authoratarian control freaks of parents want to decide what content their children can see. But hasn't anyone considered what the children themselves want? I know the legal discrimination involved here, but on a purely ideological level, shouldn't children have the right to think for them selves? Is deciding what content they can see "good parenting"? Do any of you actually think that they will be better at making their own decisions as an adult, when they aren't even allowed to see, let alone judge questionable material as children?
I am a twenty one year old, perfectly capable of seeing whatever I want legally. But I'm still young enough to actually remember what it was like when I couldn't. I had every intellectual capability of many who could, but I was censored constantly... and there wasn't a damned (legal) thing to do about it either. It's kind of easy to oppress a class of people who can't vote, isn't it?
I feel that the greatest hinderance I ever encountered in my intellectual and ethical development was controlling parental interference. It's bad enough that they can tell you what you must do, or see (i.e. their church, their political views, etc...) But the ability to decide what a child cannot see, read or learn is despicable. I really can't trust someone who advocates giving parents more power! Yes, I think that parents should be active in raising their children. They should be teachers, role, models, and when needed counselors, or confidants. I even agree that punishment is a necessary part of raising a child. However, I don't think that a parent should ever forbid a child from anything the first ammendment would protect for an adult. Why do I say this? Am I a terrible anarchist for believing in free thought, free speech, and freedom from other's (even parent't) religions? It's because I remember.
I say tell your parents to go fuck themselves if they decide that they should control what you can see, read, or think. Tell them to go watch Dead Poet's Society.
-- "But what really disturbed me was the women. They don't ever do anything more than lay the men, frustrate them by not doing so." --
Well, I actually think that's appropriate! As a nerd myself I can say that the majority of the emotional interaction I have with women fits into those catagories... nearly all the latter.
Let's see. I'll try to paint a typical scenario. Some women are fun to hang out with, or study with, or even program with (damned few). Of those to whom I never get very close, nothing is lost. But there isn't much emotional repore going on either. Now in the case that there is something more, I sometimes become friends with them, and grow closer. But if a woman is cool enough to become friends with, I'll invariably be attracted. Then, after being rejected in that way, I become sexually frustrated. Next the woman becomes frustrated at my frustration, and the friendship ends. Had the person been a male on the other hand, he would probably be a wonderful friend.
This is a pretty normal social pattern for the sort of person who knows 3 languages, and does inverse laplace transforms for the hell of it... but can't relate to women worth a damn. The geekier half of my friends have similar experiences. After a while it becomes less and less worthwhile to try to become friends, when rejection and pain are the natural results. Pursuing sex/relationships is what is left.
I don't think Neil's portrayal was sexist. It was a very astute, if unpleasant depiction of how women interact with/affect nerdy men. I think it's only by willingly blinding oneself by our culture that it is possible to deny these sorts of universal human experiences.
P.S. I'm not at all trying to say that being offended by this reaction isn't a valid female perspective. It's just that the book was written from the perspective of a socially inept man.
But what really disturbed me was the women. They don't ever do anything more than lay the men, frustrate
them by not doing so.
Well, I actually think that's appropriate! As a nerd myself I can say that the majority of the emotional interaction I have with women fits into those catagories... nearly all the latter.
Let's see. I'll try to paint a typical scenario. Some women are fun to hang out with, or study with, or even program with (damned few). Of those to whom I never get very close, nothing is lost. But there isn't much emotional repore going on either. Now in the case that there is something more, I sometimes become friends with them, and grow closer. But if a woman is cool enough to become friends with, I'll invariably be attracted. Then, after being rejected in that way, I become sexually frustrated. Next the woman becomes frustrated at my frustration, and the friendship ends. Had the person been a male on the other hand, he would probably be a wonderful friend.
This is a pretty normal social pattern for the sort of person who knows 3 languages, and does inverse laplace transforms for the hell of it... but can't relate to women worth a damn. The geekier half of my friends have similar experiences. After a while it becomes less and less worthwhile to try to become friends, when rejection and pain are the natural results. Pursuing sex/relationships is what is left.
I don't think Neil's portrayal was sexist. It was a very astute, if unpleasant depiction of how women interact with/affect nerdy men. I think it's only by willingly blinding oneself by our culture that it is possible to deny these sorts of universal human experiences.
P.S. I'm not at all trying to say that being offended by this reaction isn't a valid female perspective. It's just that the book was written from the perspective of a socially inept man.
Ok, I think this was one of the most poorly argued articles I've seen in ages. Let me start by saying that I do NOT feel that all people are equal. In some cases ONE person has been able to give more to society than the average 100. Leonardo Da Vinci would be an excellent example. In fact I feel Neitzsche is too. So since I disagree with this guy, his faulty arguments bother me all the more.
/-"sEz/
"If you get angry -- even at injustice and murder -- it will automatically and immediately transform you into an unalloyedly evil person! All of your opinions and political beliefs will suddenly and magically reverse. Every loyalty will be forsaken and your friends won't be able to draw you back. You will instantly join your sworn enemy as his close pal or apprentice. All because you let yourself get angry at his crimes."
I sure don't remember Yoda or any of the Jedi saying anything like that. They talked about controlling fear and anger, but I think Mr. Brin must have seen the unabridged version of StarWars.
"It's an ancient storytelling tradition based on abiding contempt for the masses -- one that I find odious in the works of A.E. Van Vogt, E.E. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and wherever you witness slanlike super-beings deciding the fate of billions without ever pausing to consider their wishes."
Ok, at this point I had to wonder if he even read Van Vogt's "Slan". In this book 'the masses' were wildly racist. And actually I think that the hero, a slan named Jommy Cross, DID consider the wishes of the billions around him. He considered that they all wanted to kill him because of his race! But Jommy was still remarkably non-violent.
And that brings me to my next gripe...
"Remember the final scene in "Return of the Jedi," when Luke gazes into a fire to see Obi-Wan, Yoda and Vader, smiling in the flames? I found myself hoping it was Jedi Hell, for the amount of pain those three unleashed on their galaxy, and for all the damned lies they told."
Vader caused an unbelievable amount of pain. But Obi? Or Yoda!!? Didn't Obi 'defeat' Vader by refusing to fight? Can anyone remember a single instance when Yoda caused anyone pain? Can anyone remember him fight, ever? Damned lies? Are you one to be talking about this Mr. Brin? I believe Yoda was misleading, while your commentary is false.
As far as Vader is concerned, I don't think that the series is 'worshiping' him. In my not so humble opinion, the focus on Anikin in TPM is to show how far a 'good' person can fall. And his Jedi Spirit in ROTJ? Lucas isn't preaching that saving his son (at the cost of his own life) made up for his earlier crimes. He's simply stating that it's never too late for redemption. This idea is debatable, but Lucas isn't to blame for it. Go after Jesus, or Gilgamesh on that one.
Alright. I've got one more gripe... If Mr. Brin must try to impress us with his vocabulary, HE SHOULD READ A DAMNED DICTIONARY!!! In reading his article I got really, really SICK of seeing him misuse apotheosis. I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary entry.
Pronunciation: &-"pä-thE-'O-s&s, "a-p&-'thE-&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural apotheoses
Etymology: Late Latin, from Greek apotheOsis, from apotheoun to deify, from apo- + theos god
Date: circa 1580
1 : elevation to divine status : DEIFICATION
there is also a depricated meaning of
2 : the perfect example
So I'm not sure what the heck he's trying to say when he says
"Thus few protest the apotheosis of Darth Vader -- nee Anakin Skywalker -- in "Return of the Jedi."
or
"The apotheosis of a mass murderer is exactly what it seems."
I can guess, but why would he be so pompous as to inhibit clarity?