Strange... Being responsible is the new 'cool'. by Wulfenstar

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Suck it, hippies.

Oh they are, indeed - apparently there's some kinda medical marijuana growers competition based on flavor and potency goin on just down the road from here, and it's been practically a mini woodstock or something from the traffic passin by lately, I swear that one VW minivan looked like the one TheTruth was driving in GTA: San Andreas, but that was prolly deliberate.

I wouldn't mock hippies so much were I you however, because if you had a choice between relating to your fellow man with love or violence, which would you pick ?

Seriously, Spock versus Dobson - and you already KNOW what I think of Dobson, yes ?

Besides, it's the uptight straitlaced ones which are both most hypocritical, and most screwed up behind closed doors, haven't you realized that by now... the key to getting kids to accept social and personal responsibility isn't ramming it down their throats on a pike, but simply treating them with the respect due other human beings, allowing them to develop proper self-respect, which is what I *DO* see finally happening in many small ways... and frankly, you have in great part those "hippies" to thank for it, so perhaps you should not be so quick to mock them.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:01 AM

BYTEMITE

I don't know about hippies, but my knee jerk reaction seeing the title "sex doesn't sell movies" is to respond FINALLY. I'm so sick of random movie/tv-show sex scene squick. It's not edgy, it's not interesting, I don't want to hear actors fake panting while wearing modesty patches. It's a cultural obsession, the whole forbidden fruit nonsense and all that. It doesn't add anything of literary or cinematic worth besides making me wonder if I've mistakenly walked into a feelie or something. Artistic expression fine, but common fucking sense too, people, some people want to get AWAY from this, not be bombarded by it. :/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:54 AM

This is why a society should have porn. When there is porn, it frees everything else to be not porn. Think about it:

If you want to watch people having sex, there's a million websites for that, which will give you better looking people having more sex then you would ever have in a movie. So, if that's what you're looking for, you would go online, rather than wait through 2 hours of boredom (90s) or banality (80s) before getting to the sex.

Meanwhile, movies now have to have something over random internet videos in order to be worth watching. Sex isn't the only thing that's going to suffer. Why watch 2 hours of non-funny for a few laughs when there's endless video which pack more jokes into 2 minutes. Want to watch a couple hours of bad conspiracy theory by michael moore or some such? There's better stuff online.

A movie now has to deliver what it was originally intended to: A fully satisfying story, in visual form.

I don't think this represents a change in human behavior tho, only technology.

Meanwhile, Everyong knows that Dobon is the Antichrist (probably literally) but Spock as a hippie? I think you might mean Checkov ;)

Oh wait, I get your point:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 4:50 PM

Well, I was talkin about Benjamin McLane Spock, mind you, but if you want some Vulcan thrash now...

Sorry, found this mindbendingly funny, I did.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 5:01 PM

Oh, that Spock. I hear you bro. ;)

Yes, I was raised on Dr. Spock. My parents were more beatniks than hippies, a lil too early, you know, but definitely fairly laid back.

As for Dobson, well, I summed him up in an early thread with his "Focus on the Family" as he sees it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 31, 2009 4:38 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Wow.

Great illustration on the hypocrisy of certain groups.

Anyone here want to post a pic of Obama and his family in a gun site?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 31, 2009 5:05 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Wow.

Great illustration on the hypocrisy of certain groups.

Anyone here want to post a pic of Obama and his family in a gun site?

You mean anyone here besides YOU? Or are you going to try to hand us the line that you really didn't mean it when you said you wanted to let a .308 round decide if he was really the president?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 31, 2009 5:06 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Lol

And remember all the crap I got for that little comment?

Hypocrite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 31, 2009 7:04 AM

BYTEMITE

You're not making much sense here, Wulf, remember how DT likes Sarah Palin?

The reason people didn't like your comment about Obama is because they couldn't tell if you were serious or not. Though joking about killing anyone, admittedly, even someone you like, fine, that's not a good thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 31, 2009 7:34 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Heroin production up 1,600% since Bushobama invaded Afghanistan

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

"Rather, Detweiler said, he has seen among his students that the new form of rebellion against the older generation includes "not doing drugs, not sleeping around and not getting divorced."

Who do you think are the dope kingpins? (except for not doin drugs and effin around)

Obama orders US troops to protect opium fields, wants new tax to pay Taliban in gold to attack US troops
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=40885

Quote:
"Shit's gettin way too complicated for me. There are white folks, and then there are ignorant mutherfuckers like you! You can put lipstick on a pig. Sorry ass mutherfucker's got nuttin on me. I inhaled frequently - that was the point. Pot helped, and booze. A little blow when you could afford it. Junkie, pothead. That's where I'd been headed. You ain't my bitch nigger, git your own damn fries!"
-Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro, Dreams From My Father
http://www.archive.org/details/ObamaInauguralMashup/

Foreign exchange student and cocaine dealer Barry Soetoro smokin dope in college

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 31, 2009 7:34 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

As an aging "hippie" (tho' we called ourselves "heads"):

Quote:
Besides, it's the uptight straitlaced ones which are both most hypocritical, and most screwed up behind closed doors, haven't you realized that by now...

Right on.

Also, your link has nothing to do with "responsibility"; rather, it speaks to the fact that we've been inundated by "soft porn" for so many years, it's not as titilating as it used to be. Big "duh".

And "not doing drugs" is a crock...drugs have always been here, and some are still on the rise, not to mention probably the divorce rate hasn't gone down. It's all a fallacy.

America's puritanical streak hasn't changed much in lifetimes. Don't kid yourself. Titilation still works (and don't kid yourself that the movies mentioned, especially "Twilight", isn't titilating to youngsters; out-and-out sex only appeals to a certain group and is still somewhat taboo. No change there. What kids say and what they do may be totally unrelated, especiall when said to a teacher.

Then, it begs the real question: What did hippies ever do to you, my man, to make you hate us so much? You prefer the world as it is NOW?? At least we believed in something, rather than disbelieving in EVERYTHING!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 31, 2009 2:17 PM

All else being equal, I would rather deal with someone who honestly means well, and hasn't thought it through, then someone who's motives are less pure to begin with, for some very simple reasons.

Primary among them that someone who does mean well, when presented with actual evidence and a strong argument, WILL actually listen, and with time and patience can be convinced to modify their opinion, so at least there is a chance of it, as opposed to stay-the-course asshats who are both lying about their intentions, and who will NOT be moved out of fear of appearing "weak", which is stupid - which is stronger, the flexible sea, or inflexible stone ?

Actually there's a second reason I posted a mock-clip from that episode, cause Wulf would have gotten on famously with Roddenberry, who passionately despised hippies cause the thought of people not doing what they are told completely outraged the man, and many Trek writers have always been decidedly right-leaning in political opinion - something addressed in the Trek universe only very rarely, and only in detail by the Maqui situation, and glossed over everywhere else.

See, that's where he gets it wrong, and annoys the hell out of me - he likes to throw insults at folk who listen to whatever authority of the day he has issues with, but then becomes outraged when they do not listen to HIM...

What moral right does anyone really have to tell another person what to do ?

If they consider, and ultimately reject, your arguments, it is either because you did a piss poor job of making them (Hey, look, something Wulfie and PETA have in common, so there's common ground anywhere, innit ?) or because they do not hold water - or even maybe they do not agree with your vision of how things should be.

The latter is why I will argue with more liberal folk and consider it progress even when the blood gets ankle deep, because at heart they DO mean well, and desire a better world for all, as opposed to the Rand-droids, who are every bit the towering hypocrite she was, seeking a standard of living for their own cabals quite knowingly at the expense of everyone elses.

And that division is there from the top to the bottom, even when they have so little, the former will share because it is in their very nature, and yet even when possessed of plenty, the latter will not, and consider the very idea repulsive - sure, a bit part of their rhetoric is that they do not wish to be FORCED to share, and I can understand that, but history has proven out that their assertion they would be willing to do so voluntarily is a lie, given the appalling greed we've recently witnessed, and the fact that they do not seem to have a problem with those whom they exploited, who have even less, being forced to share with THEM - judged upon their actions irrespective of morality, they're the "winners" of our society, but enter a single ounce of morality and they're revealed for the true sociopaths that they are.

So, give me the hippies - strange they may be, and their propensity for making up their own mind in defiance of anyone elses wishes may offend some, and on occasion their own failures to think it through offend even me (Case in point: MBTE) at least they are rational, sane people who are gentle in nature and can be reasoned with.

Especially in comparison to the Rand-droids, who blindly follow an ideology that was knowingly false when even it was written, to the same degree of lunacy as the most rabid religious fanatic, and just like em, half of em never even read the material in question.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 31, 2009 2:21 PM

Yes, as perhaps the boards only Palin supporter ;)
I guess chances of President Palin are looking slim.

The snipe was against James Dobson. I was recalling that pic as to dibs on who first called Dobson the antichrist on this forum, though it's possible, and even likely, that Frem did it on an earlier thread that I missed. Hating Dobson, and "Focus on the Family" is a favorite past time.

The extra irony was re: the tendency of the left to take off after the Palins collectively, I remember someone posted a thread here attacking Willow Palin. Fortunately, I don't remember who.

I'm confused, what *did* you mean, Wulf, by either comment?

ETA: Frem, thanks for word of the day Randroids.

I'm not sure that "right wing" is applicable here. Roddenberry gives us a future that is a socialist utopia, upheld by superior military force. I'm not sure he would have tolerated Wulf, since he was very intense on the issue of race. I think that "left wing authoritarian" would probably be appropriate here, as in FDR, or something. I agree that he would not have gotten along hippies, or tolerated them, as that episode illustrates. But if you look at, was it the Orions? He often goes in for the Superman moral perspective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 31, 2009 3:21 PM

Well, I put Trek at the top right of the circle, where Left and Right converge into the kind of Fascist Socialism Mussolinni proposed, something our own powers that be have desperately desired since about 1930 or so, especially big business.

And yes, that whole "better men" and divine right of kings bullshit which hearkens back past feudal times and has been no end of misery to us all, something Rand was also ever so very fond of with her "captains of industry" without doubt based around folk figures like Carnegie, DuPont, JP Morgan, and others who, when the whitewash is removed and are viewed in a historical perspective, were as monstrous in their own way as Stalin and Franco (who we also idolized, and were directly allied with at the time) were in theirs.

I dunno about race so much though, cause Kirk would hump anything that moved, and Gene himself tried more than once to get in the pants of Michelle Nichols...

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 1, 2010 7:37 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Star Trek was the epitome of a so-called "benevolent military dictatorship". I never agreed with it.

The whole "do as we tell you or we will blow you to pieces, or let you die off" just never appealed to me.

As to hippies... grr... I have a looong rant coming on that end.

But Im still hungover, so you will have to wait a day or two for your entertainment and snark-target.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 1, 2010 8:06 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thank you, Fem. I keep trying to say the thing about “good intentions”, but it never seems to get through. We “heads” spent long hours into the night (yes, usually stoned!) debating things and trying to figure out how to improve the world, at ages 17 on. I don’t see a lot of that today. Far too many of us jumped on an “idea” and ran with it, but some of them were good ideas, if not fruitful. Civil rights, environmentalism, equality for women, anti-Nam, and even anti-nuke, which I marched for and maybe isn’t wholly correct, but I’m not convinced.

People still march. Berserkeley students still riot, but the numbers are far fewer. Naïve you can accuse us of, and I’ll agree ‘till the cows come home, but well-meaning, we were. Spoiled, and able to protest and all that crap because our parents had worked to make it possible (and we screwed that one up BIG TIME with what we did to future generations). Overboard sometimes and unable to think things through, unquestionably, and some of the political efforts were as shameful as anything today. But I maintain we gave the world a lot—not what we hoped for, but still. We WERE a small minority, always remember that. Lots and lots of Boomers like their kids and the world to think they were hippies who weren’t even slightly. Maybe if we’d been more numerous we could have accomplished more. We didn’t grasp how power works…again, naïve as hell. Remember also, we lived through Kennedy, so along with the rest of America, we lost our innocence…just a bit later is all.

I agree that I wouldn’t consider Roddenberry’s vision as right-wing, and that “Roddenberry gives us a future that is a socialist utopia, upheld by superior military force” is much more accurate, in my view.

As to Wulf’s coming rant, I can probably do it for him—not that I believe as he does, but that I can predict what it will be. Probably piss me off, but that’s nothing new. The prejudice has shown itself as so deeply imbedded and unshakeable that responding is only fun, not useful. I recognize he’s a result of his upbringing, but that same close-mindedness remarked upon makes what he says kind of irrelevant.

I, too, have never figured out why what he posted supposedly relates to hippies. We believed in free love, yes, but we also believed in marriage and commitment eventually. As to sleeping around…you’ve GOT to be kidding! That has never changed and never will, until men can think with other than their dicks. We did drugs, but only a small fraction of our small minority did hard stuff, and we did very little cocaine…today’s drug users beat us by a mile. My group did mostly dope and the "visual" drugs, mescaline and psyllocybin, and I knew nobody who did heroin, etc. LSD was an "internal" drug in its way; many are the friends I had to be with and talk down from bad trips because the drug made them face their inner demons. Cocaine, on the other hand, is an incredibly selfish, hedonistic drug. I grant you speed was its little sister, tho', and some of us did that. And some died from it, some went on to harder stuff and some went nuts from LSD, granted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 2, 2010 9:31 PM

Frem,

Nichelle, with an N

I disagree with the Imperialism and Fascism. I think we've posted a number of these circles before, and I forget who posted the best, it wasn't me.

The core was that at the left was a belief in social safety net, or more, equality. On the right was belief in self determination, or laissez faire
The bottom was libertarian, but anarchy will do.
The top was authoritarian

Imperialism could be seen as straight authoritarianism, sometimes left or right, depending on the empire, but still top.

typical freedom first crowd would be lower right, into self-determination, laissez fair, but libertarian, no govt.

If it were upper right i'd say capitalist imperialissm, or militant nationalism, support of same, wars to defend others.

Wars to change others would be social engineering of a sort, which would be left top, and social engineering it can be assumed is equality-minded, but usually, left to left top

Communalism, like communes, cooperatives, etc. would be left-bottom, like the hippies.

This was the circle as whoever carved it out before had it, and had use pretty much accepting that the political spectrum was in fact a circle.

Myself, I'd put Rodenberry as an authoritarian social engineer. His military intervention is conflicted between protecting others rights to self determination and affecting change in them through enforce his usually what I would call leftist beliefs. But I can see him as top, either left top, right top, or center top.

If I were to define left and right:

left is anchored in a belief in universal equality, right in preservation of a way of life. Both ideas surface in star trek, But overall, I'd put firefly decidedly to the right of star trek. In spite of the above analysis, I think it's fairly safe to say that trek is a reasonably left wing utopia, and firefly is pretty right wing. Farscape perhaps more so, just not always the militant right wing that you get on some shows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 3, 2010 7:04 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Where's that rant you promised us, Wulf, as to why you have such a hatred of hippies?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 3, 2010 10:21 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wow, from sex to Star trek - how did that happen? One thing that bugged me about Star Trek (not the new one) was the whole sexual purity of them all - excepting Kirk of course, the rest were like Mormans in Space. It was all very status quo for such a seemingly enlightened group of races.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 7:43 AM

KWICKO

Let me guess - Wulfie's "rant" will actually take the form of a YouTube clip he grabs from elsewhere, since he apparently has no actual words or beliefs of his own, and relies on Hollywood to tell him how he really feels.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 8:47 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons: American puritalical titillation, pure and simple. Compare us to Europeans, and it's easy to see.

And Hollywood...the lead always got to mess around (with appropriate fade-outs); I sometimes think the other cast members have to negotiate their contract to get some sex!

Ah, Mike, always with the predictable snark...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 9:10 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Shut up Kwick,

Im working on it.

Besides, every time I visit the site now... my entire comp gets all fraked up.

What the hell is going on?

Dammit, I swear to God... stop using bots to redirect to the site!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 9:28 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Everytime I try to post my Word doc it keeps timing out!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 9:32 AM

BYTEMITE

Magonsdaughter: Oh, Mormons have sex... Families around here tend to be in the range of five children or more. They're just BLAND about it, is all.

Firefly is a right wing utopia? I thought it was a crapshoot universe with two pretty much unlivable options.

Note: tvtropes "crapshoot world" is not that the story or setting of a series/book/whatever is not good literature/writing/whatever, but rather that the world would not be a fun or survivable place to live.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 1:26 PM