Robert, I think Dawson was talking mostly about the call to the specific type of terror story and imagery that would constitute a "plot lift" -- It seems like he is saying the visuals and overall "world" of the movie was "home like" for people still grappling with 9/11 in their conscience. Terrorism is definitely a common theme in movies. No disagreement there. The motive Dawson seems to ascribe to the culture that would produce a reminiscent piece is a desire to push the event into something which is not our responsibility for being Imperialist.
Re:Basically 9/11 Imperial Propeganda
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
The post I copied was about Imperialism. Empire is fixed in 7 years? Don't the victim families actually need a solution rather than your "move on" irreverence?
Basically 9/11 Imperial Propeganda
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 0, Troll
This is from Scribbalative Agincourting:
"New York's alter ego, Gotham City, is under attack. Bombs kill civilians indiscriminately. Panic spreads like wildfire. The perpetrator, a mysterious self-styled 'agent of chaos', has no apparent motive. Holy terror! Has the new Batman flick plundered its plot from 9/11? The imagery here is blatant: firefighters framed in tableau against the smouldering rubble of Downtown; politicians cashing in on the paranoia; bound hostages used to relay demands on television; the extraordinary rendition of a foreign suspect; a crusade against an 'evildoer' that turns more personal vendetta than reasoned response. Then there is the film's poster, which shows a flaming, wing-shaped hole punched through a smoking office tower. You can't disavow gratuity here - there is no such scene in the actual film." - Jeff Dawson, "Has the New Batman Plundered Its Plot from 9/11?" The Sunday Times
Also: the "terrorist" demolishes a building; Batman justifies invasive "supertaps" on all cellular phones to catch the terrorist; there's a cover-up of an elected official to preserve peace, and more.
Batman is first-rate, imperial propaganda. It soothes our conscience. It makes us feel good about the dark work of empire. We are so misunderstood. We must be hated for righteousness' sake. Our virtue is hidden. We're the real victim. Augustus would be so proud of us.
Wait, wait. We are talking about ENDORSING fascism? Enforceable? Of course it is unenforceable! It is not legitimate activity for a 'free people' to undertake! Why don't we just call ourselves Eurasia?
On the other hand, I think people really need to start showing up outside the homes of the various lawyers, judges, and corporate executives involved and protest this kind of bullshit. They need to be followed into public places and shouted at about their behavior.
Exactly. Because "net net" there are going to be people IN their homes going through IP records. These names, like Viacom and Google seem to suggest that it is not fellow human beings putting on a shirt (or not) and going through data about the actions of other humans, regardless of the terminology in the foreground.
Let me try this again from another angle. Your post creates distance. It makes assumptions and asserts superiority without basis, except in a way which nudges your neighbor for support, purely on sharing the same mind stuff. The message I am support to get from you is to be absorbed because you hold the power of popular understanding, and my response is supposed to be one of reaction to your challenge of my allegedly disconnected conceptions.
Beyond your dismay over my alternate perspective, the human race does not feel well right now. Your post does not move forward, but it discusses the non-reality of motion itself, or at least wishes to distance itself from a fellow human being. That is the precise problem I was pointing out. It is not my fault that people previously relegated to a term spoke of love. Perhaps they knew of what they spoke of, perhaps not. But love is something more important than taking offense to your assumptions, and that is what is absent 'out there.' This is evident in your immediate profiling of another being as intellectually corrupted with 'external' substances.
Continuing to make assumptions is the thing I would disdain. Was science itself attached? Was science born in the "scientific revolution?" Does sensory experience == reality? Is there such a thing as a "lay person" except in a collective understanding which just might be a non sequitur? Does not your post Beg The Question, in the logical flaw sense, while claiming that it what I am doing? Many people of academic distinction, renowned integrity and vast contribution to humanity, who were not altering their brain chemistry in any way, are sad for you.
I forgot the best example. "Hippy"? What is "Hippy" (I know what you mean, and why you use it to get ranking, but what good does it to do place me apart from you, except to minimize the motion of a thread?) Humanity is in the same pattern you exemplify here, my counterpart.
Humanity is focused on external objects, believing them to be outside, and separate. Events are seen as happening "to" us. The television mindset heightens this. We sit, the box "there" plays, we sit. This is not participation in life, it is observation of an "outside world." In the same way, when we are in a stance, post "scientific revolution" where we poke and prod "matter," we are separated from it in our perceptions, and imprisoned in this "otherness" - we are severed from our source and origin. Humanity is severed from itself in the same way because we talk of this class, and that class, we do statistical analysis and yet we do not actually participate in the lives of these "individuals." Yes, we are each our self, but self itself is not disidentified from itself, which is in all of us. Returning to the point so I can get in more trouble with "you people" I will say that the internet, this post for example, is lightyears ahead of TV because when I disagree with someone on TV, they are able to speak in a -R-XR-XR-X way (permissions 555 if we were in a *nix system) or if I were watching a lame talk show it would perhaps be -rw-rw-rw- (666) but here, we each read, we each write, and we each may execute the awareness we participate in online, making it a 777 situation, that is, active, moving, and participating with the alleged outside world, as our unified inside experience. It returns us to motion. We are not intended to have kings, presidents, etc. All the little people being connected and empowered is far more efficient and natural for humanity, as we are not separated from the origin of the universe, and that origin is not limited in power allotments possible, managerial, ethical, or otherwise. However, when we view ourselves as objects, we sever ourselves from this source of actions and being.
There are plenty of people getting into lame media in new places. But the idea here is not a MILITARY revolution. It is a revolution in the sense of going around and around, moving, being actively in motion. Right now humanity is DEAD, which would make us having a life REVOLUTIONARY:)
It has been said over and over, "The revolution will not be televised."
This is an encouraging point in history, showing the success of the movement of humanity toward a real opportunity to grow.
The 'Revolution' is not a war, or a movement in the sense we previously held. Humanity itself is a movement, like economies are moving money, humanity is the body with the veins that are the economy, and the internet is a new economic platform for that inherent motion we _are_ --
So the 50 year old demographic means that the generations after them are "somewhere else" which is all we need for the future to be viable. Let the spin doctors run, let the propaganda flow. Life isn't primarily in those spheres today.
I would probably be damaged and retrospectively focused if I had a terabyte of video (of "me") growing along with me.
Learning to crack kid? To erase Daddy's archives!
Science and truth are very closely linked if not the same, but carefully discerned. Literaly, "Knowledge."
Science _confirms_ faith. The problem is then not being blind and incorrectly including nonsense, which could not be science by a strict definition. Problem is, so much as intruded into the 'fact' world that is 'farse' that you would say such a thing as "the concept of evolution becomes widely accepted then faith is voided and we enter moral decay (which is obviously wrong"
The problem I propose in contrast to the problem you propose is where you look for knowledge. You presuppose that macro-evolution is viable. I know that it is not, logically expounded, and in such a way that science confirms my faith, not threaten it.
In better words, "I only believe what I believe because I wouldn't believe it if it were not the truth."
Open source hasn't even had a chance to compare to the impact of war yet, and you're already calling the end game score?
Nevermind pragmatic evaluations of conflict. You have to have totally jettisoned the concept of spirit and virtue, or never held the view... otherwise everything makes perfect sense. Pacifism is the only way, otherwise you're manifesting destructive force which is more detrimental to your consciousness than to your victim.
Ah but who cares anyway, we live in a disposable society. Pitty we've gotten used to disgarding human beings before we read the fine print and realized there is a serious heavy heavy that warned revenge against the ending of human life.
Which reminds me, how do animal territorial pissings and resource squabbles have any sort of relevance to human character and lack there of? That's not even apples and oranges, that's figs and wildabeast
When you design a system, you don't usually develop every single piece inside the end result product.
Especially large complex pieces are projects in and of themselves which get folded in after they are mature.
Thus, in order for The New Rome to be built without imploding in on itself beforehand, TNR must assemble the US module outside the controlling elements.
Only once the adapted US has matured to embody the necessary functionality will it become associated with the intentions of its true developer.
Slashdot Mirror
Close... But still locked in the Gregorian hypothesis :)
It's 8.18.3.9.14+
Robert, I think Dawson was talking mostly about the call to the specific type of terror story and imagery that would constitute a "plot lift" -- It seems like he is saying the visuals and overall "world" of the movie was "home like" for people still grappling with 9/11 in their conscience. Terrorism is definitely a common theme in movies. No disagreement there. The motive Dawson seems to ascribe to the culture that would produce a reminiscent piece is a desire to push the event into something which is not our responsibility for being Imperialist.
The post I copied was about Imperialism. Empire is fixed in 7 years? Don't the victim families actually need a solution rather than your "move on" irreverence?
This is from Scribbalative Agincourting:
"New York's alter ego, Gotham City, is under attack. Bombs kill civilians indiscriminately. Panic spreads like wildfire. The perpetrator, a mysterious self-styled 'agent of chaos', has no apparent motive. Holy terror! Has the new Batman flick plundered its plot from 9/11? The imagery here is blatant: firefighters framed in tableau against the smouldering rubble of Downtown; politicians cashing in on the paranoia; bound hostages used to relay demands on television; the extraordinary rendition of a foreign suspect; a crusade against an 'evildoer' that turns more personal vendetta than reasoned response. Then there is the film's poster, which shows a flaming, wing-shaped hole punched through a smoking office tower. You can't disavow gratuity here - there is no such scene in the actual film." - Jeff Dawson, "Has the New Batman Plundered Its Plot from 9/11?" The Sunday Times
Also: the "terrorist" demolishes a building; Batman justifies invasive "supertaps" on all cellular phones to catch the terrorist; there's a cover-up of an elected official to preserve peace, and more.
Batman is first-rate, imperial propaganda. It soothes our conscience. It makes us feel good about the dark work of empire. We are so misunderstood. We must be hated for righteousness' sake. Our virtue is hidden. We're the real victim. Augustus would be so proud of us.
Hey! What? W
This can only mean that when IE8 comes out there is going to be a massive hit to web designers out there. Gear up for the site re-design fest!
Wait, wait. We are talking about ENDORSING fascism? Enforceable? Of course it is unenforceable! It is not legitimate activity for a 'free people' to undertake! Why don't we just call ourselves Eurasia?
On the other hand, I think people really need to start showing up outside the homes of the various lawyers, judges, and corporate executives involved and protest this kind of bullshit. They need to be followed into public places and shouted at about their behavior.
Exactly. Because "net net" there are going to be people IN their homes going through IP records. These names, like Viacom and Google seem to suggest that it is not fellow human beings putting on a shirt (or not) and going through data about the actions of other humans, regardless of the terminology in the foreground.
Rather, dw_yellow --
This thread was useful to me -- all hail vim!
It seems likely that the Google expansion is an easy way to claim a ton of ground, and to then intentionally lose it.
Let me try this again from another angle. Your post creates distance. It makes assumptions and asserts superiority without basis, except in a way which nudges your neighbor for support, purely on sharing the same mind stuff. The message I am support to get from you is to be absorbed because you hold the power of popular understanding, and my response is supposed to be one of reaction to your challenge of my allegedly disconnected conceptions.
Beyond your dismay over my alternate perspective, the human race does not feel well right now. Your post does not move forward, but it discusses the non-reality of motion itself, or at least wishes to distance itself from a fellow human being. That is the precise problem I was pointing out. It is not my fault that people previously relegated to a term spoke of love. Perhaps they knew of what they spoke of, perhaps not. But love is something more important than taking offense to your assumptions, and that is what is absent 'out there.' This is evident in your immediate profiling of another being as intellectually corrupted with 'external' substances.
*attacked -- Was science _attacked_
Continuing to make assumptions is the thing I would disdain. Was science itself attached? Was science born in the "scientific revolution?" Does sensory experience == reality? Is there such a thing as a "lay person" except in a collective understanding which just might be a non sequitur? Does not your post Beg The Question, in the logical flaw sense, while claiming that it what I am doing? Many people of academic distinction, renowned integrity and vast contribution to humanity, who were not altering their brain chemistry in any way, are sad for you.
I forgot the best example. "Hippy"? What is "Hippy" (I know what you mean, and why you use it to get ranking, but what good does it to do place me apart from you, except to minimize the motion of a thread?) Humanity is in the same pattern you exemplify here, my counterpart.
Humanity is focused on external objects, believing them to be outside, and separate. Events are seen as happening "to" us. The television mindset heightens this. We sit, the box "there" plays, we sit. This is not participation in life, it is observation of an "outside world." In the same way, when we are in a stance, post "scientific revolution" where we poke and prod "matter," we are separated from it in our perceptions, and imprisoned in this "otherness" - we are severed from our source and origin. Humanity is severed from itself in the same way because we talk of this class, and that class, we do statistical analysis and yet we do not actually participate in the lives of these "individuals." Yes, we are each our self, but self itself is not disidentified from itself, which is in all of us. Returning to the point so I can get in more trouble with "you people" I will say that the internet, this post for example, is lightyears ahead of TV because when I disagree with someone on TV, they are able to speak in a -R-XR-XR-X way (permissions 555 if we were in a *nix system) or if I were watching a lame talk show it would perhaps be -rw-rw-rw- (666) but here, we each read, we each write, and we each may execute the awareness we participate in online, making it a 777 situation, that is, active, moving, and participating with the alleged outside world, as our unified inside experience. It returns us to motion. We are not intended to have kings, presidents, etc. All the little people being connected and empowered is far more efficient and natural for humanity, as we are not separated from the origin of the universe, and that origin is not limited in power allotments possible, managerial, ethical, or otherwise. However, when we view ourselves as objects, we sever ourselves from this source of actions and being.
There are plenty of people getting into lame media in new places. But the idea here is not a MILITARY revolution. It is a revolution in the sense of going around and around, moving, being actively in motion. Right now humanity is DEAD, which would make us having a life REVOLUTIONARY :)
It has been said over and over, "The revolution will not be televised." This is an encouraging point in history, showing the success of the movement of humanity toward a real opportunity to grow. The 'Revolution' is not a war, or a movement in the sense we previously held. Humanity itself is a movement, like economies are moving money, humanity is the body with the veins that are the economy, and the internet is a new economic platform for that inherent motion we _are_ -- So the 50 year old demographic means that the generations after them are "somewhere else" which is all we need for the future to be viable. Let the spin doctors run, let the propaganda flow. Life isn't primarily in those spheres today.
I would probably be damaged and retrospectively focused if I had a terabyte of video (of "me") growing along with me. Learning to crack kid? To erase Daddy's archives!
That's obsolete by 2 years. We'll be fortunate to still have earth by then.
Jim, I don't like gwBush at all.
Science being a threat to faith is false.
Science and truth are very closely linked if not the same, but carefully discerned. Literaly, "Knowledge."
Science _confirms_ faith. The problem is then not being blind and incorrectly including nonsense, which could not be science by a strict definition. Problem is, so much as intruded into the 'fact' world that is 'farse' that you would say such a thing as "the concept of evolution becomes widely accepted then faith is voided and we enter moral decay (which is obviously wrong"
The problem I propose in contrast to the problem you propose is where you look for knowledge. You presuppose that macro-evolution is viable. I know that it is not, logically expounded, and in such a way that science confirms my faith, not threaten it.
In better words, "I only believe what I believe because I wouldn't believe it if it were not the truth."
Open source hasn't even had a chance to compare to the impact of war yet, and you're already calling the end game score? Nevermind pragmatic evaluations of conflict. You have to have totally jettisoned the concept of spirit and virtue, or never held the view... otherwise everything makes perfect sense. Pacifism is the only way, otherwise you're manifesting destructive force which is more detrimental to your consciousness than to your victim. Ah but who cares anyway, we live in a disposable society. Pitty we've gotten used to disgarding human beings before we read the fine print and realized there is a serious heavy heavy that warned revenge against the ending of human life. Which reminds me, how do animal territorial pissings and resource squabbles have any sort of relevance to human character and lack there of? That's not even apples and oranges, that's figs and wildabeast
Not that we'd discuss that
When you design a system, you don't usually develop every single piece inside the end result product.
Especially large complex pieces are projects in and of themselves which get folded in after they are mature.
Thus, in order for The New Rome to be built without imploding in on itself beforehand, TNR must assemble the US module outside the controlling elements.
Only once the adapted US has matured to embody the necessary functionality will it become associated with the intentions of its true developer.
The question is not concerns over security.
The discussion is the clarity of our view of reality as it actually is.
I for one don't particularly care what a group which claims authority judges to be law if it does not coincide with how reality works.
Truth frees. End of discussion. Bring all the legislation you want, doesn't change the fact or destract actual truth seekers. Not in the least.
No human will decide what I will or will not know if I decide to get involved. It's that simple. Decree away 'government'