REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Real world relevence of science fiction and the Whedon-'verse

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Friday, January 20, 2006 06:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5669
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:24 AM

CHRISISALL


(Cont. from another rather noisy thread)

*The Central Planets are seen as "enlightened", but this faux enlightenment is depicted as coming at too great a cost, if not downright evil. Yet the Outer Planets seem to be depicted as equally bad, just on a local level. Could this infer [or is it imply? I forget] our trouble reconciling problems both at home and abroad in these "interesting times"--are there good guys anywhere?--, or is this the human condition where everything seems a vast wasteland of iniquity, depravity and hopelessness? How does this relate to the American/Anti-American sentiment? [or UK or Canadian, etc. etc.]

*Other Sci-Fi movies/etc. that deal with the same types of issues [ie: Gattaca, trying to create the "perfect world", through genetics instead of pharmaceuticals]and any parallels we might draw...and lo and behold, our own 'verse trying the same with both.

*The struggle of Malcolm Reynolds and his fall from faith [in the 2 hour "pilot", before the battle of Serenity, Mal kisses a cross in an obviously habitual manner, yet afterwards he is actively hostile towards God, but not Book] ...is he really set against his former faith, or is he really seeking for someone to restore his faith? Are there real-life parallels here?

* Which female aboard Serenity has the greatest rack?

* The Reavers were the fault of the Central Planets. Is our present-day situation with terrorists the same situation: did we, with our policies, create Bin Laden and those like him, or are they more like the unruly outer planets with a right to war against the Superpowers?

[I put in number four to see if anyone can draw present day sociopolitical parallels with boobs.]

-As posted by Faramond









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

Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:03 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Faramond:
*The Central Planets are seen as "enlightened", but this faux enlightenment is depicted as coming at too great a cost, if not downright evil. Yet the Outer Planets seem to be depicted as equally bad, just on a local level. Could this infer [or is it imply? I forget] our trouble reconciling problems both at home and abroad in these "interesting times"--are there good guys anywhere?--, or is this the human condition where everything seems a vast wasteland of iniquity, depravity and hopelessness? How does this relate to the American/Anti-American sentiment? [or UK or Canadian, etc. etc.]


I think this was a central, if not the central theme of Firefly. It seemed obvious to me that things were never as black and white as Mal's vision of the evil Alliance oppressing the valiant Independents. Strong hints in the later episodes suggested this, as well opened the possibility that Mal might be realizing some of the contradictions in his view. "The Message" was particularly interesting in this light.

Ultimately I think it was pointed at a conclusion that the real heroes in such a morally bankrupt climate are those who stand up for themselves and those they love without losing their sense of dignity and humanity - people able to live righteously despite the pressures from the dominant political factions, whether Alliance, Independent, Republican or Democrat.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:17 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
* Which female aboard Serenity has the greatest rack?



Hrmmmm. Our history has shown a preference to smaller hand-sized 'racks'. Traditionally, humans have valued athleticism and form. Lithe and agile people, women included, were more able to survive and compete. Yes, the fertility statues show large breasted goddesses, but that was an exaggeration. Most women have smaller chests. There are of course societies that value large women for their supposed wealth. Large women tend to have larger breasts since so much of breast tissue is fatty deposits. So, um...really all depends on your taste I guess. As a female-type person, I think men (and women) prefer the smaller, more average sized breast. B, I think is popular.

None of the ladies of FF are overly endowed. I think they represent females pretty well. Zoe, a soldier, would be fit and athletic. Slim build and small breasts are ideal for that life. Likewise, Kaylee is a worker. Presumably her family is and has been hard laborers. Though curves and roundness where valued by the underclass, the large breasts would get in the way. Inara and River come from the core where beauty is coveted. I liken this to ancient Egypt or Greece. Aphrodite was always depicted with a small pert chest. I suspect that the high society of the core would hold similar ideas of beauty. As such, the companions and daughters of the rich would be graceful with little to unbalance them.

I say Kaylee.

*please keep in mind that I've lots of insane family (what twg has insane family, couldn't be) in town and I've had many drinks this weekend and many strange conversations.


www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
"...turn right at the corner then skip two blocks...no, SKIP, the hopping-like thing kids do...Why? Why not?"

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

Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:54 PM

DREAMTROVE


Here's what I think IMHO

A. 'faux enlightenment'

My thoughts are that there are two messages here:
1. People are the same everywhere, flawed.
2. The Alliance is unfair, they are no better because of their prosperity, because really it comes at the oppression of everyone else.

B. 'gattaca et al'

Yeah, this is an obvious message of the show, utopia is evil, because to achieve it you have to subvert human will. It's one of the blatantly anti-socialist messages which abound here. And yeah, this is blatantly anti-socialist, not just a natural extension of the show's libertarian bent.

C. 'Mal's Faith'

What Mal has really lost faith in is people. He has lost faith in his mission because he sees people everywhere are flawed. He's looking for something worth saving. This would imply that Mal's God is more the collective will of the people. I don't think Joss is heavily religious, but this sort of religious imagery is throughout Buffy also.

D. 'Greatest Rack'

I said Zoe, but Kayless is also a good pick. I have to disagree That Weird Girl. This sounds like an echo of faint feminist spin, but there's no media image here. I know because everyone from my home town had the same keenness for particular girls, and with no TV, magazines, or media of any kind outside of a daily print newspaper, which never devulged such things as fashion tips, it happened anyway. No one every came in and said "these girls are hot." So, men do like the bossoms, and that's clearly a genetic trend and there are genetic reasons for it. But that said, I tend to have a fondness for River. Kaylee is also quite attractive. Inara would be attractive if she weren't such a b~+^h. Zoe has the romantic flame of a stone wall. But I'm still going with Zoe for rack. Mebe I got to ogle some more pictures.

E. 'Creating Reavers'

Yeah, this is a clear indication that Joss is saying that we created Bin Laden. I don't think that's true, myself, but I can see that we are fueling the fire. Re: The 'we created Bin Laden' conspiracy theory, Bin Laden used the CIA to gain some advantages, but he was already set on his path to be a terrorist, that part's not our fault. But sure, this is the message.






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

Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:00 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
Traditionally, humans have valued athleticism and form. Lithe and agile people, women included, were more able to survive and compete. I think men (and women) prefer the smaller, more average sized breast. B, I think is popular.



I'm with ya there, TWG.
Muscle over fatty deposits, for sure.

All muscle-y like Chrisisall

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

Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:06 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
B. 'gattaca et al'

Yeah, this is an obvious message of the show, utopia is evil, because to achieve it you have to subvert human will. It's one of the blatantly anti-socialist messages which abound here. And yeah, this is blatantly anti-socialist, not just a natural extension of the show's libertarian bent.



I agree with your comments here, however, it is funny how the Corporate World Order seems to want to bend and subvert human will in service to the bottom line, almost like a Corporcialism if you ask me.

Chrisisall, remember, I coined it...

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

Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:34 PM

DREAMTROVE


Chris,

Not need to coin it, it's been coined a long time ago as Corporatism, which is a kind of Socialism.

The thing is, if I understand it correctly, and I get attacked a lot for this, but as I understand it Socialism is a kind of collectivism which seeks to better the human condition through the top-down application of a utopian ideal of society "focusing on the general welfare rather than individuality, on co-operation rather than competition."

Under that there are many forms. Some seem relatively innocuous such as the Greens, some are downright appalling such as the Nazis (National Socialists.) Some breakdown into subcategories, like Communism becomes Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism.

Benito Mussolini called his version "Corporatism." (ie., he coined it)

Todays corporatists are not very different if at all from Mussolini. They seek the merger of corporation and state to give them not only govt. control over industry, but also a 'safe space' for their command structures.

Govt. can be a tricky place to have you power structure if your an ideologue, because there may be people in govt. who are not you. Esp. when there are elections that you can lose.

Picture this: If I'm Bill Clinton, and the army corps of engineers is a key part of my nation building plan, so I appoint a yesman to the post. But then what would happen if I suddenly lost an election to an outsider? Suddenly my yesman might be yanked out and replaced by Mr. Outsider's pick. Not good for my grand plan. So, I remove the army corps of engineers from the task and replace it with Halliburton. Now I know my good friend Dick Cheney and the people who follow him will always be in charge, even if I should lose to Mr. Outsider.

This isn't the only reason to have a corporatist society as part of your great new world order plan, but it's a big one.

Another reason you might want to go the corporatist route is you might live in a society where imposing martial law and nationalizing the industry just isn't practical. By marrying you corporation and state, you can dole out enormous govt. contracts and pass legislation unevenly slanted in favor of your own pet company, the corporate branch of your union, so as to help it slaughter the competition.

Other societies have used this model before, besides Mussolini's Italy, including Nazi Germany and present day Communist China, which has govt. friendly corporations that get enormous contracts and laws passed which set things overwhelming in their favor.

Though Clinton started this, he has really been outclassed by Bush, who knows know shame. Sadly, now the United States has to be added to the list of societies that follow this model.

This isn't why I call Cheney et al neo-socialists, but it's one of the signs that they haven't changed their stripes since they were calling themselves 'Trotsky Socialists.' Back in those days Max told Dick and Bill about this great plan of corporatism and how it fit into the grand scheme.

Finally, corporations aren't good, and they're nto evil, they're just one way for people to organize. If those people are evil, the result will be bad. Fortunately, most people are good, and corporations tend to lend themselves in a better overall direction than govts.

I support the free market and I think corporations are generally a good way to enact that, but there's is nothing 'free market' about monopolies or corporatism. Just as someone could be very religious and a strong supporter of the idea of churches, and still not support the crusades or the inquisition, because they threaten other religions, and also people, I feel these approached to corporations endanger other corporations and also people.


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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:44 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:


Though Clinton started this, he has really been outclassed by Bush


So...the Alliance will have a statue of Bush AND Mao at their HQ?

Chrisisall

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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 3:22 PM

DREAMTROVE


Well, possibly, but also in the way science fiction does, they may have one staue of Bao. Or possibly Mush.

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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 3:27 PM

CHRISISALL


lol, you so silly...

Straight man Chrisisall

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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:04 PM

FARAMOND


You know, I brought the whole breast thing up just as a joke, but it got me to thinking....and this actually does have a minor "political" point.


Have you noticed that the casting dept. of Firefly tended to eschew the typical "Hollywood Beauty" aesthetic or the classic "TV Actress" look, choosing more interesting forms of beauty? Look at our favorite mechanic; she was asked to gain twenty pounds so that she WOULDN'T look "TV", and Inara and Saffron would be accused by many producers as being too fleshy, but are absolutely gorgeous. Even River, while waifish, has an unusual type of face that I find more beautiful than the rediculously caricaturized Angelina Jolie or Nicole Kidman. Of course, I was always hot for Agent Scully, too. Or look at the guys; Mal doesn't have that David Hasselhoff or Johnny Depp thing going for him, nor Wash, nor Jayne, etc.

Now, my point is this: you take the show more seriously when the people you see don't look like they were chosen by a team of demographics experts who work for "Days of Our Lives". Your typical Made-for-the-Sci Fi channel feature [or movies like "Underworld" or "The Cave" or anything with Jessica Alba] seem to insult the viewers by saying "let's convince people that this collection of underwear models is a believable collection of individuals you'd find spelunking" in giant-bat infested caves. One of the reasons I'm able to get into the show is that it "feels" more real. Except Zoe, whom I disliked at the beginning because, to me, she looks like a Sci-Fi channel staple, but now I love because her role won me over. So please no hate-mail over Zoe; I like her.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:14 PM

FARAMOND


You could say Corporate. You could say Government. I say, let's get a little more basic. I believe it to be human nature run amok. People tend to be self-centered. Happily, we also have it hard-wired within us to want to do the right thing; but we don't usually do what we know we ought to do, and the things we don't want to do, that's what we find ourselves doing.

It's a very human predicament. Look at the Environmental movement. Should be about the environment, right? But so often they end up acting like the corporate entities they supposedly hate. [of course, a look at their board of directors will often reveal a CEO or twelve]....meanwhile the regular farmer or homeowner gets the shaft.
Or look at Scientists. Supposed to be scientists, but they act like corporate/govt. shills and the new priesthood than the objective people they claim to be.

"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:22 PM

FARAMOND



I BELIEVE THE TERM THEY'RE USING NOW IS "THIRD WAY"
WHICH IS A BLEND OF EASTERN COMMUNISM WITH WESTERN CAPITALISM. IT'S ESSENTIALLY FACISM: CAPITALISM WITHOUT ALL THAT PESKY FREEDOM.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove

Todays corporatists are not very different if at all from Mussolini. They seek the merger of corporation and state to give them not only govt. control over industry, but also a 'safe space' for their command structures

...Other societies have used this model before, besides Mussolini's Italy, including Nazi Germany and present day Communist China, which has govt. friendly corporations that get enormous contracts and laws passed which set things overwhelming in their favor.

...Though Clinton started this, he has really been outclassed by Bush, who knows know shame. Sadly, now the United States has to be added to the list of societies that follow this model.






"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:26 PM

FARAMOND


Their Mount Rushmore would probably be: Mao, Cecil Rhodes, Karl Marx, Javier Solana, and either George H.W. Bush or Gorbachev. Or Monty Hall.

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:


Though Clinton started this, he has really been outclassed by Bush


So...the Alliance will have a statue of Bush AND Mao at their HQ?

Chrisisall



"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:13 PM

DREAMTROVE


Faramond,

You raise an interesting point. While I don't believe hollywood creates ideals of beauty, or for that matter has even a modicum of influence on them, they do tend to fill space ships with fashion models. Real people look much more like jayne and kaylee. I don't find the people on the typical show 'more attractive' just boring and artificial. But it's not just a look, the firefly crew also act more like regular people. Not just in the who they are, but down to the body language and personal grooming habits. A star-trek engineer never gets his hair mis-aligned while crawling around the spotless jeffries tubes and handling the immaculate sproingy things.

I disagree on Zoe. I think she's a classic example of non-standard. I think Zoe is pretty much just unattractive. Not ugly, unattractive. Let me explain. Rather than pick an uhura, or a black model or classic beauty, Morpheus' wife seems to me to have the build of a pro-wrestler. Add to that the militaristic clothes and the character that takes guff from no one and scarecly has a moment of letting her guard down, you end up with a lead female pretty close to devoid of sex appeal, yet without being at all physically ugly.

The one who annoys the heck out of me is Inara. I can't see what Mal sees in her unless it's completely physical. She's arrogant, self-involved, spoiled and blatantly hostile. She also strikes me as the typical TV character, always causing an emotional scene with her excess of attitude. But I understand why she is an essential part of the story, because she represents the contrast, a member of alliance society. Without her, the character depiction of the others would not work.

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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:32 PM

DREAMTROVE


Faramond

I disagree with you on the human nature and doing the right thing, unless this is what you mean. Necons are the result of the human desire to do good gone out of control. They see other people who are not in line with them as evil or ignorant, and thus to marginalized completely, and that any means are justified if it brings them closer to their ends, which are a series of supernational entities arranged into a one world state. You can never discount these people's belief in a utopian ideal and their almost religious belief in how one gets to that goal.

I agree on environmentalists. As more of less one my self, I think this is one of the ways in which the left lost me. Near as I can figure, it all started in America with TR, and the Conservation movement. Environmental Conservation was a hallmark and a platform point for the better part of a century, and well, technically, it's still on the platform, Bush just does a sucky job of it, as did his father and Reagan. I chalk this part up to corruption. But this means, after Nixon, the GOP dropped the ball on the environment. So the left picked it up with the word 'environmentalist' instead of 'conservationist' and it applied to a larger reach than just conservation.

But I have several problems with the way this has turned out:
1. The democratic party has yet to pay any more than lip service to the idea. The have been some general pushes for energy efficiency, which falls under the larger umbrella of environmentalism, but doesn't specifically impact important issues like the destruction of forests or the extinction of species, poisoning of our air and water, etc.
2. There has been a lot of noise from radical leftist groups, but very little headway has been made and lots of ground has been lost. I think this is due in part to the infighting and power struggles you mentioned. It's not enough to say you oppose something, you have to actually be able to stop it.
3. Leftist environmental groups often get tied to particularly unpopular political agenda items which are not directly related to the environment, and it damages or perhaps defeats the cause. An environmental conservation movement should probably stick to being a single issue item.
4. Most importantly, of the environmentalists, those who are not 'captured' as you suggest, are too far away from industry, to the point where they view it as an evil plague which must die. You will never get someone to listen to your argument on how to better themselves if you cannot convince them that you have their best wishes at heart, but instead have already convinced them that they are evil and must die.
5. Leftist environmentalists are unwilling to go after problem groups that aren't the target group of their political philosophy, even if they happen to be serious culprits in the crime. Random peasants are the planet's most destructive force, followed by govts. particularly of developing nations.

So, if you ignore the two major causes, totally alienate the third, (corporations) and then acquire no political power, and spend much of your time infighting, it is hard to actually achieve your goal.

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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:37 PM

DREAMTROVE


Yeah.

They call it the third way in Britain. Bliar does. I actually met the guy who he stole the phrase from. http://www.thirdway.org/

Which isn't an endorsement of his page, but he leads a fringe group which been in politics for a long time, and he said Blair's people spent a fair effort trying to get the domain from him.

But any way, I agree, on the mix. It's closer to fascism than anything particularly american, or the UK for that matter, with some ideas taking from russia and china.

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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:45 PM

DREAMTROVE


Faramond,

I disagree on George H. W. Bush. He had his problems, but he was not a neocon, and the neocons hated him with a passion. Lately he plays their game more, and he did to some degree as president, but it was a political game, they deeply despised him. The current installment George W. Bush is more likely to get a statue from this crowd, but if you want to go back to who it all started with, I think Max Shachtman is going to get the statue. He's the equivalent to Karl Marx in the neocon world. Cheney is Lenin and Wolfowitz is Trotsky. Rummy or maybe Cheney is Stalin. Well, the parallels aren't exact, but I guess Cheney/Rummy are Stalin, and Wolfowitz/Perle and their collective following are Lenin and Trotsky (in this parallel, clearly they are all Trotskyites, and not Leninists)

Reagan might get a statue as the first neo-con symathizer to be elected. (Ford, remember, was not elected, and Carter, as a democrat is technically a supporter of neolibs, but only as much as G.H.W. Bush)


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

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:14 PM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
(Cont. from another rather noisy thread)
*Other Sci-Fi movies/etc. that deal with the same types of issues [ie: Gattaca, trying to create the "perfect world", through genetics instead of pharmaceuticals]and any parallels we might draw...and lo and behold, our own 'verse trying the same with both.

* Which female aboard Serenity has the greatest rack?
[I put in number four to see if anyone can draw present day sociopolitical parallels with boobs.]
-As posted by Faramond


Thanks Faramond and Chris
Socio-political parallels with boobs? I was hoping that idea wouldn't survive the move, but how can I not comment. I know when I wear a t-shirt I will feel the stare of the guy sitting in the parked truck way way over there, but ideals of beauty change. In the end, physical appearance isn't what people come to value most, and I think that would hold in any socio-political reality.

On with my rant about trying to create a better world through x,y and conditioning, and some of the side effects of that effort.

Regarding flashing lights and other stimulus triggering psychic experiences
http://www.geocities.com/iona_m/Chaosophy3/CRPtheta.html

Remember the Pokemon episode in Japan from 1997? This link had some interesting comments about that episode. In case you can't be bothered reading it, here's one thing I found very important regarding this sort of triggering...
"It is important to distinguish seizures from epilepsy. A seizure is a symptom of epilepsy, which in turn is a general term for an underlying tendency of the brain to produce a variety of electrical energy that disrupts brain function. Seizures can be brought about through various ways [e.g., a lack of oxygen, brain injury, high fever], and one seizure does not in itself establish epilepsy."
http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/pun/Psycho-Log014/page3.htm

From Wiki:
Flashing images have become a staple of the Fanimutation community, often with humorous on-screen references to photosensitivity. These animations should be avoided by at-risk people.

And look, though this is not about flashing, except flashing back apparently...a tiny number of Reavers, relative to the population
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/03.21/SuddenBrainSeiz.html

But it was right about here that I started trading the concept of 'flashing' for the idea of 'alternating' in this whole idea of triggers, and I started wondering if being triggered is something facilitated by the grid of alternating current that surrounds us. I’m wondering if it happens because alternating current forms a kind of background noise that interferes with our natural frequencies and makes us more vulnerable to being unbalanced. I’m sure this won’t be news to everyone. Anyway, this last link is a forum topic: a sharing of personal triggers from very ill people.
http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-77066.html

Flashing or alternating imagery may trigger affect in:
Some epileptics
People subject to migraine headaches (I didn’t cart those links over from the thread of epic unpleasantness)
Some children (and others) watching animation
Some seemingly random humans
Psychics

I’d say that covers everyone. Comments?

One last thing: since part of my search involved a Google–ogle on the words ‘flashing lights’ there were quite a few links to websites on the topic of fireflies.

Aztecs used the term firefly metaphorically, meaning a spark of knowledge in a world of ignorance or darkness.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 3:57 AM

DREAMTROVE


We've all been omitting someone. I feel foolish now.

Saffron is the hands down, err.. hands on... um, the winner.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 7:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


A couple of comments from (ahem!) left field.

The scifi I grew up with had an essential optimism. Space travel and technology were going to lead to new landscapes, personal and otherwise. (If you can find it read short story "The Widget, the Wadget, and Boff". I think you'll like it.) Over time scifi became darker- apocalyptic, with no sense of progress, hopeless, and cynical. Joss continues that apocalyptic view. I find it troubling, because there is no hope in our world view anymore, just anxiety and fear. People who do not hope will not change things.

The other aspect of Joss' arc that I find troubling is his reliance on individual heroes. That is the happy ending in every myth, movie, and fairy tale since whenever: Hercules or our Fairy Godmother will come to save us. I was initially attracted to FF because the characters seemed like real people- maybe with more drive and ethics that usual, but basically normal people - surviving in a tough tough world. But with STM he tossed that out the window in favor of Buffy In Space. So, are we supposed to wait for a renegade from MK ULTRA to save us? How dis-empowering and unrealistic is that? You can't get a movement off the ground without a paradigm shift, and that has to engage a significant portion of the population, not just the best pilot, geek, tactician, and warrior in the solar system.

Finally- whatever victory we average people have- if we are to have any- will be economic not military. I know explosions are necessary for the movie-going public (a sign of how stupid we are) but a military win isn't going to mean much if the same old same old continues- people who control the money have used yet another war to make yet more money. We have to fundamentally stop accepting monsters in our midst and then expecting to be rescued by mythical heroes, and we have to devise a sysem that stops creating and rewarding these monsters.

Quote:

This isn't why I call Cheney et al neo-socialists, but it's one of the signs that they haven't changed their stripes since they were calling themselves 'Trotsky Socialists.' Back in those days Max told Dick and Bill about this great plan of corporatism and how it fit into the grand scheme.
Max????
Quote:

Finally, corporations aren't good, and they're nto evil, they're just one way for people to organize. If those people are evil, the result will be bad. Fortunately, most people are good, and corporations tend to lend themselves in a better overall direction than govts.
DT, this is where we fundamentally disagree. Organizations are not simply a way for people to organize, and they are not the averaged value of individuals. Organzations have their own lifespans, goals, competitors, "food", and principles of operation.

Bureaucracies are a good example of organizational sentience, and corporations are another, and they move in ways that are beyond the sum of their individuals. Let me give you an example: Let's say DoGood Inc. has a well-intentioned Board of Directors. They pay better than avergae wages, shell out for pollution control, conduct "blue-sky" research, and are the first to advance into opening markets (like hybrid cars). Where do you think they'll be in five years? Most likely they will be swallowed up by Ruthless Inc. Even well-intentioned corporations have to respond to pressures brought to bear by other corporations that flog their fully-depreciated equipment (and technologies) an order of magnitude past its lifetime (piling up sheer profit), and similarly flog the environment, employees, and consumers and using its profits to bribe governments and coercively expand.

BTW- I think the fault here is with the mechanism of the stock market- DoGood Inc could continue to exist and even thrive with it's long-term plan if it were privately held, but if it's owned by stockholders and the stock doesn't perform well, then the Board will be turned out. This is ONE free market that does more harm than good.

IF you were to describe an orgnizational psychopath- out for itself, with no remorse or limits- it would be the corporation.


---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 7:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


RE MAX: Oh, I see your later reference. I'll have to look him up. I thought it was Strauss.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 7:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Anyway, this last link is a forum topic: a sharing of personal triggers from very ill people.
Hey, this is my other internet home. Looks like you found my hangout! http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=109

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 8:59 AM

LIMINALOSITY


I'm in conduit mode at the moment, so I'm hearing this a lot.
One of the google searchs I used presented links to threads on a number of sites regarding triggers for people afflicted with some wretched thing.
Do you have a sick little one SignyM?


Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!
Aztecs used the term firefly metaphorically, meaning a spark of knowledge in a world of ignorance or darkness.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 9:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, we sure do. I actually found the correct dx and rx on that website although we had gone to top-notch docs in our area. One thing I have to say about the internet- parents talking to parents have REALLY pushed doctors from the bottom up. "You can't stop the signal" is real, altho I tend to look at is as collective wisdom of the internet.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 10:16 AM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, we sure do. I actually found the correct dx and rx on that website although we had gone to top-notch docs in our area. One thing I have to say about the internet- parents talking to parents have REALLY pushed doctors from the bottom up. "You can't stop the signal" is real, altho I tend to look at is as collective wisdom of the internet.


I worked with parents adopting severe special needs children, so I have seen this miracle of connection in action. The internet is an amazing tool, and I really enjoy talking with people from Jordan, Tokyo etc. I think the net is one vector/tool for the paradigm shift we need that you mention here...
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
People who do not hope will not change things.
The other aspect of Joss' arc that I find troubling is his reliance on individual heroes.


I think our hope is in our ability to connect with one another, and that what Joss is saying is that each of us has both the power and the responsibility to be Mal.
Quote:

But with STM he tossed that out the window in favor of Buffy In Space.
At the end of Buffy...

Select to view spoiler:


any girl who might have chosen to be a slayer was gifted that power.


Quote:

So, are we supposed to wait for a renegade from MK ULTRA to save us? You can't get a movement off the ground without a paradigm shift, and that has to engage a significant portion of the population, not just the best pilot, geek, tactician, and warrior in the solar system.
I think we are creating that paradigm shift right now, and I think some of it is happening right here at FFF.
Quote:

We have to fundamentally stop accepting monsters in our midst and then expecting to be rescued by mythical heroes, and we have to devise a sysem that stops creating and rewarding these monsters.
IF you were to describe an orgnizational psychopath- out for itself, with no remorse or limits- it would be the corporation.

So what if the CEO were accountable for the organization? I'd like that.

Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!
Aztecs used the term firefly metaphorically, meaning a spark of knowledge in a world of ignorance or darkness.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 10:24 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


I was initially attracted to FF because the characters seemed like real people- maybe with more drive and ethics that usual, but basically normal people - surviving in a tough tough world. But with STM he tossed that out the window in favor of Buffy In Space. So, are we supposed to wait for a renegade from MK ULTRA to save us? How dis-empowering and unrealistic is that? You can't get a movement off the ground without a paradigm shift, and that has to engage a significant portion of the population, not just the best pilot, geek, tactician, and warrior in the solar system.


While I agree about the 'One Hero in all the Land' BS that creeps into every movie (I hated that Neo was 'The One'), I have to say at least in Serenity, Mal didn't save the day entirely. What did he really accomplish?
1) He MAY have gotten the Alliance to ease up a bit on the River thing...and not all by himself.
2) He enabled a paradigm shift in the Operative.
3) Most of his crew lived (again, not all due to Mal's heroic efforts).
4) Mal found his belief (in himself).

Not exactly the work of Hercules or even James Kirk.
The Alliance won't be brought down by the Miranda broadcast, the proper spin will ensure that.
And another piece fell off his ship, even after the fix.

Still real people as far as I can tell...

What do ya say?

Like a Reaver in an Executive Boardroom Chrisisall

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 12:54 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We've all been omitting someone. I feel foolish now.

Saffron is the hands down, err.. hands on... um, the winner.


Shes really nice in person as well.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

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

Monday, January 16, 2006 7:56 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:


The scifi I grew up with had an essential optimism. Space travel and technology were going to lead to new landscapes, personal and otherwise. (If you can find it read short story "The Widget, the Wadget, and Boff". I think you'll like it.) Over time scifi became darker- apocalyptic, with no sense of progress, hopeless, and cynical. Joss continues that apocalyptic view. I find it troubling, because there is no hope in our world view anymore, just anxiety and fear. People who do not hope will not change things.



You'll love the stuff I write then. You think joss is too dark?!!? Huh. I find the difficult this is I think he's too light. He's not in the all hall monitor boyscout cardboard fantasy star trek world, but still, joss could seriously take several steps towards wes craven and I wouldn't object.

Quote:


The other aspect of Joss' arc that I find troubling is his reliance on individual heroes. That is the happy ending in every myth, movie, and fairy tale since whenever: Hercules or our Fairy Godmother will come to save us. I was initially attracted to FF because the characters seemed like real people- maybe with more drive and ethics that usual, but basically normal people - surviving in a tough tough world. But with STM he tossed that out the window in favor of Buffy In Space. So, are we supposed to wait for a renegade from MK ULTRA to save us? How dis-empowering and unrealistic is that? You can't get a movement off the ground without a paradigm shift, and that has to engage a significant portion of the population, not just the best pilot, geek, tactician, and warrior in the solar system.



I really agree. I would quibble about one thing. I don't think river is buffy, I think she's more like faith, or dark willow, so the story lacks a reliable superhero, but it is in danger of becoming crusaders for justice, and the eternal happy ending and fairy godmother deus ex machina, all of that, why should I go on you already put it so well.

Quote:


Finally- whatever victory we average people have- if we are to have any- will be economic not military. I know explosions are necessary for the movie-going public (a sign of how stupid we are) but a military win isn't going to mean much if the same old same old continues- people who control the money have used yet another war to make yet more money. We have to fundamentally stop accepting monsters in our midst and then expecting to be rescued by mythical heroes, and we have to devise a sysem that stops creating and rewarding these monsters.



As a Taoist I don't believe in victory. Victory is a sign of defeat. If you press your own position so far that you break the will of your opponent, you have lost. The object is to win agreement, reach consensus, make peace, not to oppress others to your will or clone yourself. I don't usually spout views at people, but this one is so at odds with typical western philosophy I thought maybe there were folks who hadn't heard it. I guess I believe a military victory would mean nothing. But I agree, we reward monsters, and by defining things in terms of victory, we keep the line open for 100% win for the monsters, old ones, new ones, even us *as* monsters. Two things I think about the alliance offhand: 1. Mal should find some acceptance from the people that he is right and the alliance must end, in the form of some sort of underground. This defiance is proof enough, but without this moral support he just become a guy who doesn't like some of the things it has done, but not a righteous man. 2. The best weapon to fight something like the alliance is corruption. Yeah, I'm standing up for corruption here, esp. the kind that runs rampant, because nothing tears a society down faster. It was corruption that stopped the USSR, corruption is bringing down Tom Delay and corruption will some day kill the communist govt. in China. Mal should have people on the inside faithfully ascending the ranks.

Quote:

Max????


Ah, these are the moments to cherish *evil grin*
If you don't know, I welcome you to a wonderful new rabbit hole. I babble about this stuff, but when I do, I sound like pirate news, and I think it's really better to explore it for yourself. It leads interesting places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman

Quote:

Bureaucracies are a good example of organizational sentience, and corporations are another, and they move in ways that are beyond the sum of their individuals. Let me give you an example: Let's say DoGood Inc. has a well-intentioned Board of Directors. They pay better than avergae wages, shell out for pollution control, conduct "blue-sky" research, and are the first to advance into opening markets (like hybrid cars). Where do you think they'll be in five years? Most likely they will be swallowed up by Ruthless Inc. Even well-intentioned corporations have to respond to pressures brought to bear by other corporations that flog their fully-depreciated equipment (and technologies) an order of magnitude past its lifetime (piling up sheer profit), and similarly flog the environment, employees, and consumers and using its profits to bribe governments and coercively expand.


I so completely and utterly disagree. The existance of Ruthless Inc. is a side effect of a short term corruption that will be likely corrected as soon as sanity is restored to govt. The long term success will be of DoGood Inc., as long as it survives the bankrupcy proceedings of Ruthless Inc., which it should. But extant law would have prevented the merger in the first place if it were only enforced. Generally, a company which looks after its workers and the world they live in will do better, especially in a field of open competition. It's a vastly superior model to the unaccountable entity devoid of competition that has nothing to achieve except to increase it's drain on the public till.

I think the organizational psychopath is actually government. Corporations only compete for success the way people do, they have friends and allies too, but mostly they exist to provide goods and services.

The stock market is an open field for investors, and is essential to the system, as it provides part of the accountability, (the other parts are workers and customers) and provides the lion's share of funding for business expansion, hiring of workers etc.

The flaw which sprung up in the '80s and '90s was corporate raiders. I think that this could be dealt with by a new anti-raider law which could keep greed players from taking over companies. It would be a simply law, workers and customers would be able to bring suits to force out investors who did not have the best interests of the company, the population or the enviroment at heart, essentially, you write up a document defining sleazy practices which are just blatantly bad for business and bad for America, and then you say, okay, sue, a judge decides, and Mr. Fink is forced to sell his shares. To avoid some impropriety, the SEC could take the shares at fair market price and sell them later, the amount of money the state might lose doing so would be small compared to the effects of having people try to bend the rules to not lose that money. Since, as a result of the deal, there is no way Fink can lose or gain money, there's really nothing at stake except whether or not Mr. Fink continues to be allowed to participate in ownership and related actions in the company. If he's really a rat, he gets banned by the company, if he's not, he doesn't.

Additions like this are what the GOP has been doing to capitalism for a century or so, little tweaks here and there to fix problems as they come up. I totally agree that you have put your hands on a flaw, but I disagree that it's an argument for throwing out the system, I think it's just an indication that another patch is necessary.

Capitalism seeks to mimic nature, but it isn't nature, and so it has to evolve over time. But that doesn't mean we should go back to govt. institutions, aka Intelligent Design.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:36 AM

FARAMOND


Regarding the "dark" science-fiction versus the "optimistic" side...

I think a while back, some scientists promised us that science would provide everything for us: moral compass, fulfillment, etc. Perhaps the "trekker/trekkie" stuff is on the out and the Joss stuff is on the in because...science did NOT provide what was promised [I think it was a naive and illogical promise anyway]. Instead what we have is people injecting pig fetuses with jellyfish dna to produce glow-in-the-dark swine, [?!!] or the whole genetically modified foodstuffs that give you tumors. Science is like Mathematics; there IS no moral compass there.

"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:51 AM

FARAMOND


Well, when you listen to what the transnationalist crowds are saying in speeches all over the globe, it gets VERY scary.

I'll give you a 'frinstance: "To save the planet, 80% of the human population must go." Okay, they say we're over-extended. Fair enough; we're overpopulating in certain parts of the globe, but what do they want to do about it?
Now, in a speech about the effects of the new Codex Alimentarius [recap: vitamins, supplements are now defined as "toxins" and those who distribute them without a medical license will be considered as trafficking in illicit drugs the same as a heroin dealer], the United Nations OWN FIGURES say that if they can actually enforce these laws now on the books in EU and USA [rotsa ruck, but anyway], then they estimate deaths from starvation to reach a billion [that's with a B, people] people, with another billion due to the effects of malnutrition and related diseases [ie: diabetes]. The context here was that that would be a Good Thing. ?!! Happy about starvation?! That's not a Utopian Ideal; that's a bunch of elitists who want a very big playground. Their "desire to do good" is a pointedly selfish one.



Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Faramond

I disagree with you on the human nature and doing the right thing, unless this is what you mean. Necons are the result of the human desire to do good gone out of control. They see other people who are not in line with them as evil or ignorant, and thus to marginalized completely, and that any means are justified if it brings them closer to their ends, which are a series of supernational entities arranged into a one world state. You can never discount these people's belief in a utopian ideal and their almost religious belief in how one gets to that goal.







"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:02 AM

FARAMOND


See, I don't see it as the "One Hero" deal at all. I think Jayne quoting book said it best: "If you can't do something stupid, do something right." I think it's about personal responsibility, not heroism.

Example: I used to work for a bookstore owned by a multi-millionaire and his wife. The wife was being overtly rude to people she assumed were "poor." I was one of the managers. It was a situation of: do I say something and lose my job, or am I prepared to live like this? I thought it was my duty to say something, to "do the right thing", even though everyone said it would be pointless and stupid. So I did. And I was fired. I'm no hero; I just am not willing to live like that. And now, in her memory, she knows that there will be people who will risk their job to tell her that she's wrong.

....epilogue: I'm still trying to find the right job. And I'd do it again. Veritas vel ad nex means: truth, even unto death.

"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:05 AM

FARAMOND


While "Saffron" is indeed pretty, bigger don't mean better.

And I'm seriously regretting my "boob" thread: can we all agree on a moratorium on mammary-related posts from now on?



"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:15 AM

FARAMOND


Okay....

Here are Loeffler's Laws of Beaurocracy:
[ www.steelonsteel.com]

1. Give lip service to your originally stated goals

2. Keep your organization in existence AT ALL COSTS, even at the cost of your originally stated goals

3. Defend yourself from any attack, no matter how truthful it is



And I don't know who stated it earlier, but since when is CONSENSUS such a wonderful thing? Then we'd have no discussion. This "One Mind, One World" crap gives me the willies. Too close to 1984.


"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 4:34 AM

FARAMOND


MY BAD....

SORRY, PEOPLE.


It should read like this:

1. Give lip service to your originally stated goals

2. Keep the organization in existence at all costs, even at the cost of your originally stated goals

3. Defend yourself from any and all accountability

....sort of sounds like it could work for beaurocracies AND corporations, doesn't it? Common denominator: people.

"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:48 AM

FARAMOND


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Capitalism seeks to mimic nature, but it isn't nature, and so it has to evolve over time. But that doesn't mean we should go back to govt. institutions, aka Intelligent Design.



Okay, Intelligent Design versus Evolution....I keep hearing stuff on this that I MUST address.

m-m-must....d-destroy....r-r-rhetoric.

"Capitalism seeks to mimic nature, but it isn't nature, and so it has to evolve over time." ...so, according to evolution [ie: things have the appearance of design, but are actually the products of random, uncontrolled forces with no intelligent direction] it adapts for survival. This implies no moral compass [ANYTHING that aids survival and reproduction is, for lack of a better term "good": predators, prey, scavengers], yet everyone gets upset when corporations [or govts.] act this way [well, except when stockholders get higher dividends; they don't complain all that much]. Ethics and evolution are antithetical to each other. According to evolution, things just are, not right or wrong. So, extinction of a given species [or corporation] is simply the forces of nature selecting the more powerful [or perhaps ruthless] over the weaker [who are slowed down by all those pesky morals]....so people shouldn't get upset. It just IS. People shouldn't [according to this] get upset about finding out they have cancer. That just is. Regarding conservation/environmentalism, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, "If the Spotted Owl goes extinct, then [according to evolution] SCREW him." That's how evolution works. So if corporations mimic nature, they're doing a pretty good job.

Now, let's contrast that with Intelligent Design...[ie: things have the appearance of design because they ARE designed, not due to random, uncontrolled forces, but by some intelligence or intelligences that we might speculate on: ancient astronaut theory, the "God" hypothesis, etc.--THAT is the theory; let's toss the political rhetoric of "religion vs. science" in the trash where it belongs] This implies that corporations are formed by design. [I know, duh] But it also allows for a potential for a moral compass, and this is WHY people get upset when corporations/govt's act without ethics, because people see them as acting deliberately, rather than randomly. Intelligent choice.

Many scientists today speak of systems: the nervous system, the cardiopulmonary system, the reproductive system, the immune system....system this, system that. All these systems working together in a cohesive way to maintain function. Like a machine. Like nanotechnology. DNA "code": a digital, redundant, self-replicating, error correcting code that is neither random nor periodic. Sort of exactly like what SETI is searching for as a basis for discovering extra-terrestrial INTELLIGENCE out there in the 'verse.

....you starting to get my frustration with the double standard?

Then they say there are "problems" with these systems, in other words: a given system had order, and now there is an element of chaos in that order that must be addressed for the health of that system. They act as if things SHOULD WORK PROPERLY, that their is a sense of order, and we have to do something to FIX this system. Now throw in the Second Law of Thermodynamics [the Law of Entropy] that states: "Over the course of time, things go from a condition of order to a condition of disorder."

Makes sense?

It cannot work both ways; you can't be saying "evolution" and then get all mad at people when they do something to gain dominance or power over others; they are simply 'following their instinct to survive'. You see good intentions slowly deravel, as by entropy, but it's because we MAKE DECISIONS, decisions that are usually selfish. We cannot escape these tendencies; you look at England's "Bloodless Revolution" and then look at England today. You see the Protestant Revolution, then look at Protestantism today: every bit as corrupt as those they separated from. You look at the American Revolution, then look at today: we have more oppression of our government than the colonists did under British rule. We've just been [deliberately] conditioned to think that it's normal.






"....also, I can kill you with my brain."

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:24 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Faramond:
While "Saffron" is indeed pretty, bigger don't mean better.

And I'm seriously regretting my "boob" thread: can we all agree on a moratorium on mammary-related posts from now on?



"....also, I can kill you with my brain."


Hey, I was talking about her personallity, which is really nice.

No she's not fat



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:38 AM

DREAMTROVE


Faramond,

1. I certainly didn't mean consensus through cooperation, I mean you debate, disagree, argue, compete, and then hopefully reach a consensus. I'd like to see the number of votes needed to win on any bill upped to 60, that way some sort of bipartisan agreement would be required. Otherwise the majority will always be shafting the minority. But I didn't mean cooperative govt. by any means, you must've missed my excessive rants on the subject.

2. Bad things will happen. You need a system designed for that. Yes, in nature predators prey on quarry, but you mis-stepped the analogy. A business prepresents a predator or prey species, not an individual predator. If nature encouraged the extermination of species, then this wouldn't work. Sure there will be bad people, etc., but your system must be fine tuned to help encourage the most desireable behavior without taking free will away from people.

I think a moral compass is a dangerous thing, and not a good idea. I think that a general pragmatic look at the survival of the planet, and the people on it indicates that ideal behavior dictates that it not be destructive or genocidal. It probably shouldn't be oppressive, because this will create resentment, foster hatred, and lead to the downfall of society and chaos, which will be both destructive and genocidal. But this is pure pragmatism. Beyond that, each society should be allowed to set its own rules based on its own culture. An overarching moralistic view is bound to lead to badness.

Here's the other part you're missing: Evolution within the confines of the rules you set up. In nature, there is a balance which prevents the extermination of all competition, and if it is not so, then evolution stops. Occassionally something like this happens, everything dies, and then it all starts over again. But nature has had billions of years to evolve that balance. We've only a couple hundred years to evolve capitalism, and I think we've done a swell job. There are still bugs to be worked out, improvements to be made.

I view the economy as a river. The river flows through the valley, for the benefit of everything in the valley. You tweak the flow of the river to try to bring the most benefit, but if you make drastic changes, build dams or canals, the whole valley might drastically suffer, so it has to be done very lightly.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:40 AM

DREAMTROVE


Saffron still wins

I think that cat is out of the bag, and there will be no stuffing those boobs back into concealment. Citizen, did you meet her at the con in london?

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You know, I think Saffron's boobs are fine but her face looks so.... gaunt. I know this is supposed to be about boobs but I prefer Kaylee.

Doing my best to keep boobs front and center.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:54 PM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by Faramond:
I think it's about personal responsibility, not heroism.

I thought it was my duty to say something, to "do the right thing", even though everyone said it would be pointless and stupid. So I did. And I was fired. I'm no hero; I just am not willing to live like that. And now, in her memory, she knows that there will be people who will risk their job to tell her that she's wrong.



Oh, I know this song! It's no fun giving your time and effort to put money in the pockets of the clueless, is it? Next time (because there probably will be one) you might try starting sooner to let her/him/them know how you feel about an attitude. I've had better effect in making gentle but persistent attempts than in standing up to declare when something's gotten on my last possible nerve. If they fire you, imo, you've lost, because they probably think they're right and you're just outrageous and deserved to be fired.

Speaking of personal responsibility, what about that one ring?
1. Pick it up, it's very shiny
2. Let it lie in the dirt and walk away, because gold is really not my color
3. google "ritual disposal power objects"
4. Call Buffy
5. Ditch this moon, because it's obviously doomed
6. Order the reproduction from the catalogue of foolish gifts, because hey, who wouldn't want the one ring
7. Begin stealth viral marketing campaign for Feingold, while secretly considering a vote for McCain, because enough already with Ben/Glory and all their friends

Aztecs used the term firefly metaphorically, meaning a spark of knowledge in a world of ignorance or darkness.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:04 PM

DREAMTROVE


Pick it up, it's very shiny

Re: #7, Hey! I ressemble that remark.

McCain and Feingold are great friends, and did the campaign finance reform together. But I would be up in the air in that situation, I'm just kind of assuming that we're not going to get a decent candidate on both sides, law of averages. We'll maybe get Feingold, and maybe get McCain or Hagel, but chances are it will be Ben Nelson/Hillary vs. Jeb/Condi.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:05 PM

DREAMTROVE


Kaylee is very mattressable, but Saffron is definately most likely to be horizontal if I ruled the universe.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:20 PM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pick it up, it's very shiny
We'll maybe get Feingold, and maybe get McCain or Hagel, but chances are it will be Ben Nelson/Hillary vs. Jeb/Condi.

Not picking up the shiny easy way to annihilation is your whole deal, so I doubt it DT.
I have even worse nightmares about this election than I did about the last one.

Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!
Aztecs used the term firefly metaphorically, meaning a spark of knowledge in a world of ignorance or darkness.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:50 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Citizen, did you meet her at the con in london?


I did, and she said she liked my shirt



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:03 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Not picking up the shiny easy way to annihilation is your whole deal, so I doubt it DT.
I have even worse nightmares about this election than I did about the last one.



lol, you should. Don't be so sure, I'm a wacky vampire. Not putting the ring on and saying 'Hey Mr. Nazgul, here I am, take me to the dark lord Sauron and come fill me with your naughty evil' is probably a good idea, but the one ring is so shiny ;)

Actually, if the one ring is still big govt. I'm not going to use it, but I don't want anyone else to have it either. I might need a Sam Gamgee to carry it for me. He better not turn out to be a Smaegol.

Oh dear, I'm just too geeky for this, I can carry this analogy to an absurd extreme. I bet I can be outgeeked too.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:04 PM

DREAMTROVE


Lucky you.

What was the shirt?

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

Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:29 AM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
ut the one ring is so shiny ;)
I might need a Sam Gamgee to carry it for me. He better not turn out to be a Smaegol.
Oh dear, I'm just too geeky for this

For you sir, I'd recomment options 3 and 6. The catalogue reproduction of the one ring is supurb; simply effulgent, and you'll find a wide array of safe disposal options with #3...
Tooooo geeky? I think anyone in this thread could give you a run for your coin of the realm on that one...if there still is anyone in this thread.
I think some are still feeling the after effect of the pirate.

Aztecs used the term firefly metaphorically, meaning a spark of knowledge in a world of ignorance or darkness.

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

Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:07 PM

CITIZEN


It was a light brown shirt, but short sleeved, with a bunch of sewn on patches, Union Flag, one that says route 66, that sort of thing.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

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

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:34 AM

DREAMTROVE


Maybe she thought you were cute.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, March 27, 2024 07:58 - 6153 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL