What's ironic is that "it's not as bad as the holocaust" has been used as one of the few defenses of the behavior of the state of Israel. That's pretty bad - it's like someone who has beaten his family to death complaining about how wrong it is to be compared to a serial killer.
How you got any claims about Communism or Islamism from a critique of a state formed around an ethnic identity baffles me utterly. You may want to actually read Zizek if you want to deal with positions that are substantially more nuanced, though you'd have to jettison your crude reductionism.
A lot of Apple enthusiasts (and I like Apple products - I have a MacBook, would probably get an iPhone after certain conditions were met, etc.) seem to think that if we reject an Apple product that we were considering, we should just shut up about our rejection, while letting others continue to sing the praises both of Apple and its products.
This thread is based on a critique of Apple policy. To take the position "then shut up and don't buy it" is disingenuous and counter-productive. Apple has something that most manufacturers of consumer electronics don't have - out-and-out fans. They seem to want to exclude Apple from the kind of criticisms that other vendors are regularly subject to. It's not going to fly.
What would you say about a computer manufacturer that voided the warranty if you install Linux?
The "hacking" (that is, the installation of 3rd party apps) voids the iPhone warranty. That's the issue. If Apple simply refused to allow people to install software from their distribution site unless they followed certain guidelines, but allowed, without voiding the warranty, other types of installation, then there would be a lot less grumbling.
Re:Comics as real literature
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
Because, frankly, Alan Moore is over-rated. There are dozens are far more interesting authors mentioned in this thread. Moore is the Spielberg of comics: perhaps among the best of "Hollywood," but still "Hollywood." We want to talk about the Coen brothers, or the Godards and Fellinis and Kubricks.
Re:Comics as real literature
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
The painful difference that you're overlooking is that between the OP's "all" and your "most."
That said, a reasonable response is to recognize the irreducibility of "greatness" in different forms: that the greatness of a novel is essentially unlike the greatness of a film. I also think, in some ways, we forget the media can exhaust themselves. I think that the "high point" of the novel was in the mid 20th century, from Proust and Joyce to Faulkner and Steinbeck. I enjoy and respect many contemporary novels, but they aren't as aesthetically ambitious as those of the high modernist era, and indeed, post Robbe-Grillet, I don't think that they can be. I can see the "exhaustion" of film as a formal problem also coming around the bend. None of this is to say that excellent films and novels cannot be created, only that they reach a crescendo in artistic accomplishment (in a Greenbergian sense).
The graphic novel has not reached this point, nor has the videogame. Their greatest days are still ahead, I think. What they have to overcome is often their very enthusiasts, rather than those who don't currently consume them. It is often the fans that keep the media in thrall.
Re:Comics as real literature
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
I'm shocked that the parent was modded down. Someone with points please rectify this.
Re:It's a serious art form
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
I also don't think it's really as ground-breaking as people say, except for comics. It seeks to achieve in comics what was generally achieved in literature well by the 18th century (e.g., Thomas Moore's Utopia) without really using the expressive power of the visual medium. It is only a breakthrough because the "room" in which comics were trapped - the superhero genre - was so small and confining to begin with.
Re:It's a serious art form
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, that's Joe Matt.
Re:It's a serious art form
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
A couple other suggestions:
The Arrival, by Shaun Tan (I mentioned it up-thread).
Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi (now a film.)
Blankets is by Craig Thompson, incidentally. Other comics-as-serious-art practitioners to look for would include Chris Ware, Dan Clowes, Julie Doucet, Joe Sacco, Joe Matte, Seth, Chester Brown, and Art Spiegelman.
Re:It's a serious art form
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
Both enjoyable, but ultimately, if that's the best that American comics can do (and it isn't), then it's pretty disappointing. Both are filled with cliches and a sort of adolescent, ponderous hyberbole. Some interesting ideas, but I think something like Blankets is really more compelling and serious.
Re:Comics as real literature
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
My favorite graphic novel (does anyone even remember the etymology of the word "comic"?) has no text at all, so I don't know if it could be called "literature." At the same time, it tells an amazing and touching story, and is probably the purest exercise of the potential of the comic (OK, I give up) form that I can think of. It's The Arrival, by Shaun Tan.
I agree with your main point - that a handful of superstitions aren't a deal-killer for love and companionship - but I have to do the basic debunk on this little bit of astrological apologetics:
Besides, it has been scientifically proven that the season in which a baby is born correlates with the qualities that child has, in terms of health, smartness, and even temper. Granted, correlation is very small, but this almost qualifies as astrology, doesn't it?
Then why is a Leo born in Australia or Chile treated like a Leo born in Canada or Norway?
Incidentally, if there's an element that is being left out of all this discussion of dating and beliefs, it's that of social class. Geeks are often myopic about the realities of class (and then ascribe aspects of personality that are based on class to some personal quirk or defect or other.)
While I'm all for the idea that games and pop music have an interesting relationship, the claims made in the article seem overblown. To me, this stood out:
Our FIFA 2005 soundtrack featured the earliest appearances of Franz Ferdinand, Marcelo D2, and Scissor Sisters.
Franz Ferdinand was already huge when FIFA 2005 came out, and the Scissor Sisters were pretty well established. I think a lot more of the claims made by the EA spokesmodel are unlikely to withstand scrutiny.
Yes, I also think that the correlation is spurious. But that's different from dismissing entire lines of inquiry about factors that influence behavior in favor of some ill-defined appeal to "personal responsibility."
"Personal responsibility" is a code-word for a refusal to look at contributory factors. It's a kind of simple-mindedness. The master-narrative you're playing into is this: social scientists are going to push through a bunch of regulations and restrictions because they correlate some influence with an unwanted behavior, when people should just be held responsible for their behaviors.
That populist sentiment misses a lot of the point of that kind of research. It may not have much to do with "banning" anything at all, but, for example, giving parents information that will help them decide if and when to bring videogame consoles into the home, or whether someone who is having trouble with violent behavior should be advised to stay away from videogames. That research is worthwhile even if there isn't a direct public policy connection.
I'm all in favor of the more nuanced view of the topic of media effects on behavior, and I think the authors of this book are right on. But the old canard of "what about personal responsibility?" strikes me as anti-intellectual crankiness.
Would it have been appropriate for Native Americans to exterminate all European settlers, and then, if they could, all Europeans, then? Also, it's only been 60 years and there are still rumblings of anti-Semitism: maybe Israel should nuke Germany, just to be sure.
You are a member of a nation-state and enjoy its benefits. You are collectively responsible for its trade deficits, for various financial obligations it has accrued over its history, etc. Nations which have received funs from the World Bank also create debts that its citizens are ultimately responsible for.
If you are part of a business that acquired a liability before you joined it, you still have that liability. You are not morally culpable, perhaps, but you are a member of an institution (or institutions) that may be responsible, because that institution has a history longer than your life. Think of it as responsible in the sense of a debt or liability, not a sin.
Your bile-fueled eagerness to out hypocrisy has clouded you to the fact that he is an advocate for systemic change,not ineffective feel-good consumer-based solutions. Obviously, there are global benefits from some people doing things that, if everyone did them, would be destructive environmentally. This is true with every endeavor.
The distinction between the neurological and the biographical is a bit artificial. Thoughts and patterns of thought can have long-term neurological and endocrinological consequences. One's brain chemistry is a result of experiences as much as of genes.
Slashdot Mirror
What's ironic is that "it's not as bad as the holocaust" has been used as one of the few defenses of the behavior of the state of Israel. That's pretty bad - it's like someone who has beaten his family to death complaining about how wrong it is to be compared to a serial killer.
How you got any claims about Communism or Islamism from a critique of a state formed around an ethnic identity baffles me utterly. You may want to actually read Zizek if you want to deal with positions that are substantially more nuanced, though you'd have to jettison your crude reductionism.
The "lesson" of the Holocaust seems to be that the apparatus of the state can be mobilized to ensure ethnic hegemony.
Seriously, this piece by Zizek seems to be the best critique of "lessons" of the Holocaust.
A lot of Apple enthusiasts (and I like Apple products - I have a MacBook, would probably get an iPhone after certain conditions were met, etc.) seem to think that if we reject an Apple product that we were considering, we should just shut up about our rejection, while letting others continue to sing the praises both of Apple and its products.
This thread is based on a critique of Apple policy. To take the position "then shut up and don't buy it" is disingenuous and counter-productive. Apple has something that most manufacturers of consumer electronics don't have - out-and-out fans. They seem to want to exclude Apple from the kind of criticisms that other vendors are regularly subject to. It's not going to fly.
What would you say about a computer manufacturer that voided the warranty if you install Linux?
The "hacking" (that is, the installation of 3rd party apps) voids the iPhone warranty. That's the issue. If Apple simply refused to allow people to install software from their distribution site unless they followed certain guidelines, but allowed, without voiding the warranty, other types of installation, then there would be a lot less grumbling.
Because, frankly, Alan Moore is over-rated. There are dozens are far more interesting authors mentioned in this thread. Moore is the Spielberg of comics: perhaps among the best of "Hollywood," but still "Hollywood." We want to talk about the Coen brothers, or the Godards and Fellinis and Kubricks.
The painful difference that you're overlooking is that between the OP's "all" and your "most."
That said, a reasonable response is to recognize the irreducibility of "greatness" in different forms: that the greatness of a novel is essentially unlike the greatness of a film. I also think, in some ways, we forget the media can exhaust themselves. I think that the "high point" of the novel was in the mid 20th century, from Proust and Joyce to Faulkner and Steinbeck. I enjoy and respect many contemporary novels, but they aren't as aesthetically ambitious as those of the high modernist era, and indeed, post Robbe-Grillet, I don't think that they can be. I can see the "exhaustion" of film as a formal problem also coming around the bend. None of this is to say that excellent films and novels cannot be created, only that they reach a crescendo in artistic accomplishment (in a Greenbergian sense).
The graphic novel has not reached this point, nor has the videogame. Their greatest days are still ahead, I think. What they have to overcome is often their very enthusiasts, rather than those who don't currently consume them. It is often the fans that keep the media in thrall.
I'm shocked that the parent was modded down. Someone with points please rectify this.
I also don't think it's really as ground-breaking as people say, except for comics. It seeks to achieve in comics what was generally achieved in literature well by the 18th century (e.g., Thomas Moore's Utopia) without really using the expressive power of the visual medium. It is only a breakthrough because the "room" in which comics were trapped - the superhero genre - was so small and confining to begin with.
Sorry, that's Joe Matt.
A couple other suggestions:
The Arrival, by Shaun Tan (I mentioned it up-thread).
Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi (now a film.)
Blankets is by Craig Thompson, incidentally. Other comics-as-serious-art practitioners to look for would include Chris Ware, Dan Clowes, Julie Doucet, Joe Sacco, Joe Matte, Seth, Chester Brown, and Art Spiegelman.
Both enjoyable, but ultimately, if that's the best that American comics can do (and it isn't), then it's pretty disappointing. Both are filled with cliches and a sort of adolescent, ponderous hyberbole. Some interesting ideas, but I think something like Blankets is really more compelling and serious.
My favorite graphic novel (does anyone even remember the etymology of the word "comic"?) has no text at all, so I don't know if it could be called "literature." At the same time, it tells an amazing and touching story, and is probably the purest exercise of the potential of the comic (OK, I give up) form that I can think of. It's The Arrival, by Shaun Tan.
Then why is a Leo born in Australia or Chile treated like a Leo born in Canada or Norway?
Incidentally, if there's an element that is being left out of all this discussion of dating and beliefs, it's that of social class. Geeks are often myopic about the realities of class (and then ascribe aspects of personality that are based on class to some personal quirk or defect or other.)
Franz Ferdinand was already huge when FIFA 2005 came out, and the Scissor Sisters were pretty well established. I think a lot more of the claims made by the EA spokesmodel are unlikely to withstand scrutiny.
Yes, I also think that the correlation is spurious. But that's different from dismissing entire lines of inquiry about factors that influence behavior in favor of some ill-defined appeal to "personal responsibility."
"Personal responsibility" is a code-word for a refusal to look at contributory factors. It's a kind of simple-mindedness. The master-narrative you're playing into is this: social scientists are going to push through a bunch of regulations and restrictions because they correlate some influence with an unwanted behavior, when people should just be held responsible for their behaviors.
That populist sentiment misses a lot of the point of that kind of research. It may not have much to do with "banning" anything at all, but, for example, giving parents information that will help them decide if and when to bring videogame consoles into the home, or whether someone who is having trouble with violent behavior should be advised to stay away from videogames. That research is worthwhile even if there isn't a direct public policy connection.
I'm all in favor of the more nuanced view of the topic of media effects on behavior, and I think the authors of this book are right on. But the old canard of "what about personal responsibility?" strikes me as anti-intellectual crankiness.
Undergrad is the new high school.
It is not necessarily bad sexual selection to choose to marry an Einstein and have his children, even if he is a pain to live with.
Would it have been appropriate for Native Americans to exterminate all European settlers, and then, if they could, all Europeans, then? Also, it's only been 60 years and there are still rumblings of anti-Semitism: maybe Israel should nuke Germany, just to be sure.
As do the "God is telling me to kill you" and "I don't like you" incentives.
You are a member of a nation-state and enjoy its benefits. You are collectively responsible for its trade deficits, for various financial obligations it has accrued over its history, etc. Nations which have received funs from the World Bank also create debts that its citizens are ultimately responsible for.
If you are part of a business that acquired a liability before you joined it, you still have that liability. You are not morally culpable, perhaps, but you are a member of an institution (or institutions) that may be responsible, because that institution has a history longer than your life. Think of it as responsible in the sense of a debt or liability, not a sin.
Your bile-fueled eagerness to out hypocrisy has clouded you to the fact that he is an advocate for systemic change,not ineffective feel-good consumer-based solutions. Obviously, there are global benefits from some people doing things that, if everyone did them, would be destructive environmentally. This is true with every endeavor.
The distinction between the neurological and the biographical is a bit artificial. Thoughts and patterns of thought can have long-term neurological and endocrinological consequences. One's brain chemistry is a result of experiences as much as of genes.