Firefly politically incorrect? by Bugboy

Yes, I may have over-simplified Star Wars as being black and white, but relative to the degree which Firefly is black and white, it is much more so. As I wrote the post, having rented both Star Wars DVD's this weekend, I thought perhaps that wasn't the greatest example as many questions were left unanswered as to what was good and what was evil. Hopefully the next (last? third?) movie will answer those questions. But you see my point, it's unfortunate but television today is not for the insightful.

"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak!" - Jayne

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

Monday, December 15, 2003 10:40 AM

JRC

I know any comparison between Firefly and Star Trek is frowned at, but I believe there is a lot in common with our Firefly and the last couple of seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. There were so many episodes that were totally unlike any Star Trek that came before, shows that dealt with the darker side of humanity (and their alien counterparts). It really showed all aspects of human emotion.

Talk peace, but, carry a BIG stick.

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

Monday, December 15, 2003 11:03 AM

BUCKTHORN

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
It's really speculative though, now that I come to think of it. It depends on your point of view. Like Joss was talking about in objects in space. Objects, (people included and their actions) are separate from any meaning we might give them, so giving them a label like good or evil is purely for our own benefit. They can not be inherently either.

I agree, and that's one of the reasons that I like the show so much... they're not good or bad guys per-se, they're just individuals out there with their own motives and ideas. For example, I loved the scene where Mal shot the horse out from in front of Patience.... not that I'm a fan of killing horses, but there was no mental anguish or asking Jayne to be the sharpshooter again.. but just what Mal had to do in order to survive. People depended on Mal daily and it was his duty to them that helped him make the tough decisions easier.

Likewise the bad guys weren't "bad" for the sake of being evil (why destroy the Earth anyway? that's what you keep all your stuff!!), but because they had motivation and that's what served their interests. No big black moustache(tm Simon) here, just what they do to live day-to-day. I don't part with money I don't have to either. ;)

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

Monday, December 15, 2003 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Uther55:
...the new Battlestart Galactica Mini Series...

I was under the impression the new Battlestar Galactica was another blatant boobfest, with the Cylons transformed into Amazons and the male hotshot pilots now being female hotshot pilots. I cancelled my cable about 6 months ago due to degraded signal, so I didn't see the mini-series.

"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak!" - Jayne

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

Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:22 AM

Quote:
Any comments?

Strongly disagree. But it does bring moral questions up. Your question regarding Book's comment ignores the context.

Dobson shot Kaylee. Yes he was paniked and in over his head. And Book protected him from Jayne. As repayment for that, Book got beaten up, and Dobson then held a gun on River, whose crime was escaping torturers. Torturors who were cutting into her brain and whom Dobsom wanted to return her to.

Sometimes life is black and white. There is no middle ground between existence and non-existence. Joss says something to this effect in the commentary to "Objects in Space", things don't exist only partly. They either exist, or they don't

You either live or you are dead. There really is no middle ground here either. And you either deal with those who would kill you, or else allow them to succeed, thus ending your existence. While the Good Book may say "Thou shalt not kill", sometimes such rules only succeed in getting the moral person dead, at the hands of the wicked.

We see the moral dimension again, when Mal risks death and torture at Niska's hands to return stolen medicine. As Mal himself said, he didn't have a choice. It was a black and white issue, and he weren't bad enough to even comtemplate keeping the medicine those folks needed.

Life and death is black and white. It's either one or the other. It may be fashionable to talk about shades of grey and nuances and stuff, but in the end, you are either alive, or you are not.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Objects, (people included and their actions) are separate from any meaning we might give them, so giving them a label like good or evil is purely for our own benefit. They can not be inherently either.

I think this hits the mark on the head. Things are just that, themselves, things. Meaning and purpose, by their very definition, are products of the mind, of consciousness. So can only describe relationships that an object has, with some conscious entity.

To River, its just a stick. To Mal, Kaylee, et.at. its a gun and its pointed to kill. Whatever the object is, it means different things to different people.

Watching Firefly, I don't see a "shades of grey" type thinking in the writing. Dobson was going to kill River, Reavers were on the way, and there was little time to consider the question carefully. What Mal did was solve a problem, protect one of his crewmen's life, her very existence. For River, and Mal, it was good. For Dobson, not so much.

Well, to cut this short, my thinking is that morality is contextual, consequential (you have to look at the consequences of an action to determine its moral character.) and objective only to the extent that the commonalities of the human species hold. If you are trying to kill me, I am going to stop you, by any means available. If you get hurt trying to kill me, I ain't going to feel too bad about it.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:38 AM

I think you illustrate my point precisely, you choose to see it in black and white, I do not. You say I take Book's statement out of context, then proceed to mention everything/everyone tangental to Book to justify your point of view.

Book swore to protect that man's life, saw him killed and then questioned whether he thought it was right or wrong that he was killed. I don't see that as a black and white issue, from BOOK's point of view.

"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak!" - Jayne

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
Book swore to protect that man's life, saw him killed and then questioned whether he thought it was right or wrong that he was killed. I don't see that as a black and white issue, from BOOK's point of view.

I had a really good response, but for some reason it has disappeared.

I don't see the world as shades of grey, because, well, it ain't. Books problem is not so much with shades of grey, but the simple fact that if Book had done "the right thing" River would have been returned to blue hand crew, and the rest of the crew, including himself would have been jailed, if not killed outright. (Although none of the Serenity crew saw what happened on Ariel, the jail thing has still got to be a worry)

Book's idea of the right thing to do is connected to a particular moral system. It appears to be New Testiment Christianity in origin, and I really do not want to turn this into an anti-religion thread. But there is a bug in any religion based moral system, and Book ran smack dab into the bug.

The purpose of a moral system is to provide a system of rules on behavioraly choices. We are living critters, and part of being living critters is dying. Something that most of us would rather avoid as long as possible. But actions have consequences, and amoung those consequence are issues of life and death.

Since actions are chosen by humans, humans require some system to pick those actions that will not get them killed, or injured. (Generally speaking. There are specific contexts were death may be preferrable to, say, living as a slave) And that is what morality does.

All religion based moral systems have as their foundation, "These are the rules because God says so." This is an appeal to authority, and as such is not a logical argument. It is an argument ender. Why the person obeys the rules is secondary to the effect such obeidence has on the life and welfare of the actor, and those in his environment. What real world effects does a general rule "Thou shalt not kill" have, does not matter why the persons are not killing.

I tend to look at it this way. "God says" is short hand for "I don't know how or why it works, it just does. If you act in this fashion, then things will work out better for you." Real world effects will feedback on the moral system (which is essentially a mental construct) and those systems that don't work, end up dying out, along with the believers in that system. Darwin applied to memetics.

Shades of grey, like "Lesser evil" reveal bugs in the moral system, rather than we live in an amoral universe, or as an excuse to forget morality altogether. You also have a problem in that certain cultural norms which really are unimportant to survival, (but may be important to identity, or culture of the individual) get glommed in with the rest of the moral structure. So we have some religions forbidding bacon, demanding burkas and the like.

Books problem was that killing Dobson was the right thing to do. Letting Dobson live, meant one or all of Serenity's crew would be dead or in jail (enslaved) But killing Dobson was against the rules of that particular moral system. Hence the conflict, which is more than a "shades of grey" thing.

Life and death is a black or white thing. You are either alive or dead. There really is no middle ground.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:54 AM

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:06 AM

HKCAVALIER

2 cents:

While it's all well and good to bad mouth organized religion, I don't think Book's conflict is simply one of obedience to an abstract code. He says he "swore" to protect the marshal's life. Decent people do not take their oaths lightly, nor do they abandon them without serious doubt and inner conflict. It is not an abstract code he serves, but his own concrete personal integrity. It has to do with loyalty which is a human value that transcends religion or ethics--predates them, if you will. It's "in" us. How would you feel if you saw a decent person fullfilling his duty gunned down in cold blood? I believe Mal's action disturbs Book's humanity first, and his religiosity by the way.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:02 AM

AMNON

Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
I was under the impression the new Battlestar Galactica was another blatant boobfest, with the Cylons transformed into Amazons ...

This is a nitpick, but a tribe of Amazons can by definition not be a "boobfest"

--
Too much of you is less of a balm.

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
...people seem to prefer simple themes of right and wrong rather than the subtle nuances of Firefly's, which may be over the head of the common tv viewer.

I think you´re correct about this one. People want to see something "stable". The do not want to see the main charachters of a TV series shoot an old friend dead when they could have avoided it.

Also, I find it remarkable how funny the violence is portrayed, even the torture-scenes in "War Stories" made me laugh. I couldn´t help it. It is very possible that people are turned off by this. Not me, though :-).

However, I do not think that Firefly should be taken so seriously. It is very much a comedy, some of the dialogues could be from a movie parody on "Mad Magazine".

That one does buy some of the stories and is actually touched by them shows how great the actors are.

Since I got that Box-Set last weekend, I´m hooked to the show. Let´s all hope that the movie or new TV-Show or whatever gets made soon, because I´m already sad that I do not get to see more of the Serenity for a while.

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
...people seem to prefer simple themes of right and wrong rather than the subtle nuances of Firefly's, which may be over the head of the common tv viewer.

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
...people seem to prefer simple themes of right and wrong rather than the subtle nuances of Firefly's, which may be over the head of the common tv viewer.

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
...people seem to prefer simple themes of right and wrong rather than the subtle nuances of Firefly's, which may be over the head of the common tv viewer.

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:34 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Personally I like the fact that Firefly does not present its characters or the situations they find themselves in as black and white. I find shows that try to force its characters into the molds of "white hats" or "black hats" to be unrealistic.

Life in general is not black and white, and the various gray areas make for interesting and entertaining TV. Gray areas are more realistic and give the characters and the universe they dwell in more depth.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
...people seem to prefer simple themes of right and wrong rather than the subtle nuances of Firefly's, which may be over the head of the common tv viewer.

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

Thursday, December 18, 2003 1:03 PM

I want to apologize to everyone for posting my last respones multiple times.
I experienced some weirdness there and did not realize it.
I am very sorry.

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

Friday, December 19, 2003 1:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
2 cents:

While it's all well and good to bad mouth organized religion, I don't think Book's conflict is simply one of obedience to an abstract code. He says he "swore" to protect the marshal's life. Decent people do not take their oaths lightly, nor do they abandon them without serious doubt and inner conflict. It is not an abstract code he serves, but his own concrete personal integrity. It has to do with loyalty which is a human value that transcends religion or ethics--predates them, if you will. It's "in" us. How would you feel if you saw a decent person fullfilling his duty gunned down in cold blood? I believe Mal's action disturbs Book's humanity first, and his religiosity by the way.

This is a very good point.
I was not in any way, shape or form trying to bad mouth any religion. I generally don't do that, unless your religion says its okay to kill me. Only then, do I got problems with that religion.

His own personal sense of honor, however that is a good point. But it is also important to realize that the realize that the reason he could not fulfill his duty, was Dobson beat the snot out of him. A preacher.

Dobson was not a decent person, nor particularly bright. Beating up on a preacher, who, even though he smacked you in the jaw, did keep you from being spaced right then and there, is not what I would consider the mark of a decent person.

Nor is shooting an unarmed, and very cute, female mechanic in a moment of panic.

Telling the captain that he was as guilty as the fugitives, before backup had arrived, was not bright. It was a severe tactical mistake. And one that ultimately cost him not only his mission, but his life.

I also think that Dobson's actions disturbed Books sense of humanity far more than Mal's. At the end of the day, one has to realize that Dobson brought his death on himself, first by threatening the captain, shooting a member of his crew for no reason except panic, and holding a gun to his passenger's head. While Book could not keep his vow, and I am sure that is troubling, Dobson's actions I think are far more troubling. Even more so, since it is apparent that Dobson had the weight of the law behind him.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, December 19, 2003 1:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Life in general is not black and white, and the various gray areas make for interesting and entertaining TV. Gray areas are more realistic and give the characters and the universe they dwell in more depth.

Well, can we agree to disagree?

I do think that the universe is black and white. What a lot of folks see as grey, I don't get. But then I find a lot of folks don't get me either.

It boils down to a simple question. Do you live or die? You pick the actions that will keep you alive, at a price you are willing to live with. Part of that is you have to expect that other people have thier lives, and wants and desires, and try to find mutually accomadating resolutions to areas of conflict.

But sometimes, you run into situations where there is no mutual compatible solution. He wants you dead, you want to stay alive. Don't think offering a coma is gonna work. Then the choice is to fight, run, or die.

In Firefly, there is a definite conflict between the law, and being able for our favorite crew's ability to live. Something's gotta give, and that is the world they, and sometimes we, live in.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, December 19, 2003 1:37 AM

One other thing. I don't see morality as just an "abstract code" If anything morality is where the rubber meets the road in philosophy. The rules themselves may be abstractions of numerous events, situations, etc. ("No touching guns!") but it has a profound real world effect. Ask Dobson.

There is this guy named Popper who divided the world up into two catagories. You had real things, like rocks, trees, people, etc. and you also had ideas, like philosophy, morality, laws, governments etc. The first group is called "objective", and the second "subjective".

The demarkation is whether the thing can, or cannot exist without a mind. Rocks have existed long before people, or even plants. And I can show you that rock over there, which indicates that it needs no particular mind in order to exist.

The thing about subjective items is that your mind is not accessible to me, nor really any one else. You can tell me about your dreams, memories etc. But I have no way of independently verifying nor refuting what you tell me. I can't look inside your skull. It is not open to just anyone.

Between those two large catagories are things like law, language, mathematics and inventions. These are ideas made real, or more real than a dream is, real in a very different fashion. And they are accessible to minds, (and in some cases, like legal systems and political or religious institutions, only minds) but accessible to more minds than say dreams are.

Its all tied together. Even an abstract subjective imaginary moral code has concrete objective real consequences, and in the final analysis, it is those concrete objective real consequences that determine whether your abstract code works, or not. The real world is what determines whether your mental constructs and whatnots are true, false, healthy or unhealthy.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, December 19, 2003 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Personally I like the fact that Firefly does not present its characters or the situations ...

This is getting way too deep for me, Browncoat1 has expressed all that I was trying to get across. That there are such nuances of right and wrong in Firefly is what makes me like it so much, and what I feel makes it unique.

Legal prostitution? Drakon how does that fit into your black and white view of this reality? (in 20 words or less please) How many scenes deal with the conflict Inara and Mal feel within themselves about her profession.

I'm simply saying that to me the majority of people in the US don't like complicated issues like this in their entertainment and that may explain the network's lackluster support of it.

"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak!" - Jayne

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

Friday, December 19, 2003 5:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
Legal prostitution? Drakon how does that fit into your black and white view of this reality? (in 20 words or less please) How many scenes deal with the conflict Inara and Mal feel within themselves about her profession.

20 words or less? Well, two people having sex, whether its for money, prestege, or dinner, I ain't got a problem with. Its their business, not mine.

But then I don't connect sex with love, the way a lot of folks do.

and I think I am at the end of my word count.

Quote:
I'm simply saying that to me the majority of people in the US don't like complicated issues like this in their entertainment and that may explain the network's lackluster support of it.

I will partially agree, that American audiences don't like a lot of complexity in their entertainment. They do like the happy endings and rooting for the good guys. The good guys have to be good, if not legal or respectable. (In fact I think that most Americans like the rascal good guy far better than the straight arrow)

But I think the network's lack of support was more, they simply did not get it. I think it had more to do with starships and horses than morality. Heck prostitution being something that would keep Fox from picking up a show? Get real

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, December 19, 2003 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
In this day and age when the establishment is painting the world in shades of black and white, as so un-inspiringly offered by our president's "you're either with us or against us" statement, I can't help but wonder if Firefly's portrayal of the infinite shades of gray that is the real world's rights and wrongs isn't rubbing some people the wrong way. That could explain the lack of interest from the networks, as people seem to prefer simple themes of right and wrong rather than the subtle nuances of Firefly's, which may be over the head of the common tv

Actually the way you describe Firefly it would be Politically Correct. Bush's comment was Politically Incorrect. Firefly would be viewed as being very much in tune with today's politically correct morale relativism. So I don’t think that it is Firefly’s morale relative stance that makes it out of phase with the networks, but it may make it hard to stomach for much of Heartland USA. Although I think you’re correct in saying that people seem to prefer simpler themes in their TV shows, and maybe Firefly was just a little TOO politically correct.

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

Saturday, December 20, 2003 12:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually the way you describe Firefly it would be Politically Correct. Bush's comment was Politically Incorrect. Firefly would be viewed as being very much in tune with today's politically correct morale relativism. So I don’t think that it is Firefly’s morale relative stance that makes it out of phase with the networks, but it may make it hard to stomach for much of Heartland USA. Although I think you’re correct in saying that people seem to prefer simpler themes in their TV shows, and maybe Firefly was just a little TOO politically correct.

Not so sure I would agree. I can see why you would say that based on superficial issues with the show, but I think underneath it, there is something else altogether going on.

Heinlein had it right, there are two kinds of people on this planet. Those that think mankind should be ruled, and those that want to be left alone. Even Marxism, which talks a good bit about the power of the proletariat, is really just a throwback to feudalism. Instead of kings, you got commisars. Instead of an aristocracy, you have "the party". The rhetoric is different, but the structure is the same, just with different players.

Whether its a right wing dictatorship, a left wing dictatorship, or even a dorsal fin dictatorship, it don't matter. What it says does not matter either. Either you make your own decisions, or someone else makes them for you.

Mal works for himself, outside of the authority of the Alliance. He is his own man, and not property of the state, nor anyone wearing a red sash. In this day and age, this appears to be far more politically incorrect, than any superficial things like "multicultural" chinese swearing.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Saturday, December 20, 2003 2:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
Legal prostitution? Drakon how does that fit into your black and white view of this reality? (in 20 words or less please) How many scenes deal with the conflict Inara and Mal feel within themselves about her profession.

I can't do it in less than 20 words. My wife tells me that it takes me more than that to simply ask to pass the butter. I want to expand on my eariler statement.

What you see represented in Mal and Inara's sexual relationship is a confluence of a number of interesting cultural issues. Mal is a 19th century man, while Inara is a 21st century woman, so there is bound to be some conflict between the two especially in the area of sexual morality.

People have sex for fun. There is an evolutionary factor at work here, as people who enjoy sex are more likely to have more sex that folks who don't. Sex also causes babies, and along with the accompanying population shift, you can easily see how we evolved into a species that enjoys sex.

But, sex does cause babies. And it is a great disease vector. Both of which are problems for society at large. Epidemics can decimate entire populations, and eliminating one disease vector, even if it through public taboos on promiscuity, is something that everyone in a culture has an interest in.

But babies are perhaps the most important threat to a civilization. First off, they need to be fed, cared for, clothed, kept healthy, etc. It takes a lot of investment in time, energy, and emotions, to raise a child to be, if nothing else, not a threat to the population. You don't want your kid to grow up to kill you, steal from your neighbors, or get involved in other criminal, or perhaps revolutionary actions. This would be detrimental to the culture and society you live in, from which the individual derives much benefit.

Because of this natural consequence of sex, taboos have sprung up around the act. It is limited to between a committed hetrosexual partner. In some cultures, sex for fun is severally frowned upon, even as a concept. It is both seen as something animalistic, and evil, as well as an expression of love and devotion between a man and his wife. Underneath all this is society's interest to see that those who engage in sex, are somewhat set up to take care of the consequences of thier actions. Namely children.

So you have taboos for being a virgin until marriage, so that the husband cannot claim "its not my kid, therefore I will simply bail." Fidelity in marriage and even the idea of marrying for love, all are brought about because a functioning society needs its children raised properly and indoctrinated into the cultural norms of that society. Otherwise, the society is at risk, along with the benefits that society achieves for its individual members.

[There are some less noble reasonings for some sexual taboos and mores, such as political power over women, but this one problem is the major one.]

Now, fast forward to today. What is different? Medical technology for one thing. Now, birth control is something very easily produced, and it is quite effective. [Not 100%, but close enough to convince most folks that the risks are far remote and reduced substantially.] Freed from the threat of children, old ideas on recreational sex are resurfacing. They never really went away, that is human nature. But since the circumstances have changed, the reasons for the old sexual morality gets questioned.

So you see women entering the work force in much larger numbers, the gay rights movement, and the Fox network gradually turning into a hard core sex channel (to quote Marge Simpson) Since the risk to society is far smaller, why not legalize prostitution? Sex is something that adults do to make themselves feel better. (Hopefully their partners as well.)

Inara, coming from a core world, displays for the most part, this modern concept, and it is easy to imagine that her access to birth control technology was far greater than that of Mal's

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Saturday, December 20, 2003 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Not so sure I would agree. I can see why you would say that based on superficial issues with the show, but I think underneath it, there is something else altogether going on.

That may be.

The supposed bases of postmodern political correctness is personal freedom and social tolerance, which together tend to manifest themselves as moral relativism. (Although social tolerance often takes a backseat to ideological bigotry, which is why political correctness has developed its hypocritical nuances.) Now, you want to argue that Firefly's theme is based on personal freedom, at least in part, and I don't disagree with you, but that is a pretty politically correct idea. It's certainly much more politically correct then Bush's State of Union Address, which tended to strike the PC harbingers as crude and simplistic. I'm not trying to oversimplify Firefly's theme. I realize there may be more to it. I'm simply pointing out that the comparison used may not be entirely accurate, as such the conclusion drawn from it may be lacking.

Although, I think it's interesting (and the topic may have been brought up in the past) that Mal does not seem to be a moral relativist, despite the shows rather grey-area approach to life. He's a moral absolutist. He believes that there are certain absolute truths. In the first episode Mal and Zoe are returning medicine they stole because their morals would not allow them to keep it. When they are approached by the sheriff who states something like "a man has a choice" (moral relativism // personal freedom), Mal responds with "I don't believe he does." (moral absolutism // personal accountability.)

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

Monday, December 22, 2003 8:53 AM

GADSDEN

Absolutely, Firefly is politically incorrect, and would be in almost any country at almost any time in history.

One of firefly's central themes is the inborn, innate, irrevocable right of every man, woman, and responsible child to say, possess, or do anything, anywhere, at any time, without asking anyone's permission as long as they don't initiate force or fraud against another. That kind of sentiment has been unpopular in this country since Abraham Lenin. He decided he disagreed with the parts of the Constitution that said states have a right to seceede, and that individuals must be given due process without exception--including during wartime.

Just as central to Firefly's philosophy, and just as unpopular, is the belief that two people, or two million, do not have any greater rights than one. We see Mal giving orders and mostly expecting them to be followed, not because a majority of the crew elected him to be boss but because each and every crew member individual agreed to his command. In our majority-dominated, democratic system, try telling your local tax collector that you disagree with how your property taxes are being spent in your public school district, so you'd like to just stop paying them and in exchange you won't ask for any public schooling for your kids. Then you'll understand how deeply "The Tyranny of the Majority" is ingrained in our society. The Serenity's crew operates on the fringes of their civilization precisely to escape this tyranny.

www.freestateproject.org -- You don't need to leave Earth to win your freedom!

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

Monday, December 22, 2003 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gadsden:
One of firefly's central themes is the inborn, innate, irrevocable right of every man, woman, and responsible child to say, possess, or do anything, anywhere, at any time, without asking anyone's permission as long as they don't initiate force or fraud against another.

Sorry dude, but this is essentially one of the bases of postmodern political correctness. :D Now if you're talking about some other political correctness, then I don't know what to say. I only know of one. :) There could be facets of Firefly that are politically incorrect, but I don't think it's the explanation you offer.

Quote:
Originally posted by gadsden:
That kind of sentiment has been unpopular in this country since Abraham Lenin. He decided he disagreed with the parts of the Constitution that said states have a right to seceede, and that individuals must be given due process without exception--including during wartime.

Well actually his name was Abraham Lincoln, and he had nothing in common with Lenin. Abraham Lincoln was not a Marxist. Although I do agree that he may have overstepped his bounds in arguing against the Succession, but that's another whole hill of beans.

Quote:
Originally posted by gadsden:
Just as central to Firefly's philosophy, and just as unpopular, is the belief that two people, or two million, do not have any greater rights than one. We see Mal giving orders and mostly expecting them to be followed, not because a majority of the crew elected him to be boss but because each and every crew member individual agreed to his command. In our majority-dominated, democratic system, try telling your local tax collector that you disagree with how your property taxes are being spent in your public school district, so you'd like to just stop paying them and in exchange you won't ask for any public schooling for your kids. Then you'll understand how deeply "The Tyranny of the Majority" is ingrained in our society. The Serenity's crew operates on the fringes of their civilization precisely to escape this tyranny.

The Tyranny of the Majority? You prefer, instead, the Tyranny of the Minority? You prefer Despotism to Democracy. I don’t see this as being central or even a theme of Firefly, but whether it is or not, it is also a fairly politically correct idea often imbued by the Left. Political correctness is often a champion of the minorities and special interests, and it is often the case that PC leaders would be very happy if they could get rid of this pesky Democracy and replace it with a government where they have power over the majority. If that happens, I can almost promise you that there will be another civil war and another ring of Successions, and I'll have my gun in my hand for sure. But fortunately we are still a Democracy, and a fairly successful one, as far as Democracies go, so I'm not too worried.

You have an interesting view on political theory. On one hand you argue that Abraham Lincoln is Marxist for his disagreement with Succession, then on the other hand you embrace Marxist ideals of minority rule.

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

Monday, December 22, 2003 11:05 AM

GUNSLINGER

I am with Gadsden on this one. The other problem we seem to have these days is the idea that we are all entitled to support of some kind. I like the fact that the crew make their own way, and rely on each other without expecting someone to take care of them. The "Rugged Individual" is the central character in any western. Whether he is a gun for hire, a sod-buster, a rancher, or a law-man, the western hero takes care of himself and his own. I do not think the morals are as gray as some think. It is just that the law is not the measure of morality

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

Monday, December 22, 2003 11:06 AM

GUNSLINGER

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

Monday, December 22, 2003 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Gunslinger:
I am with Gadsden on this one. The other problem we seem to have these days is the idea that we are all entitled to support of some kind. I like the fact that the crew make their own way, and rely on each other without expecting someone to take care of them. The "Rugged Individual" is the central character in any western. Whether he is a gun for hire, a sod-buster, a rancher, or a law-man, the western hero takes care of himself and his own. I do not think the morals are as gray as some think. It is just that the law is not the measure of morality

I agree with you. Well put.

And in terms of PC speak, this point that you bring up is particularly politically incorrect, from the point of view of the Postmodern Left. Freedom does not necessarily mean that one can do anything that crosses one's mind, as is often prescribed in "personal freedom." That's not freedom. That's anarchy, or more often it ends up being dependence on the Government.

Freedom implies responsibility and accountability. It implies morals and decent, disciplined behavior and the right to choose that behavior, but it also (and this is the part the PC harbingers don't seem to understand) implies the right to suffer the consequences of poor choices or even random event. Now maybe that's what Gadsden meant, I didn't follow a lot of what he said to be honest, and that may be my fault. But that much I feel is a central them of Firefly.

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

Monday, December 22, 2003 12:41 PM

KERNELM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Tyranny of the Majority? You prefer, instead, the Tyranny of the Minority? You prefer Despotism to Democracy. I don? see this as being central or even a theme of Firefly, but whether it is or not, it is also a fairly politically correct idea often imbued by the Left. Political correctness is often a champion of the minorities and special interests, and it is often the case that PC leaders would be very happy if they could get rid of this pesky Democracy and replace it with a government where they have power over the majority. If that happens, I can almost promise you that there will be another civil war and another ring of Successions, and I'll have my gun in my hand for sure. But fortunately we are still a Democracy, and a fairly successful one, as far as Democracies go, so I'm not too worried.

Do you seriously think there is no middle ground between Tyranny of the Majority and Despotism? The Bill of Rights is all about preventing a Tyranny of the Majority. They're there to protect fundamental human rights. Otherwise, there'd be nothing to protect the rights of minorities. Special interests? What, you mean the special interest for everybody to be treated like people and not some subhuman class of citizens? There already is something with power over the majority and that's called the Constitution.

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

Monday, December 22, 2003 1:35 PM

GUNSLINGER

Well said both of you. One of the counter-examples that was used to explain why democracy in and of itself does not work is that if two people decide to take all of the possessions of a third and divide them up, that is democracy. The whole point of the Bill of rights, and the Constitution is to tell the government what it cannot do.

The point that freedom does not mean you will not have to bear the consequences of your actions is well taken too. A couple of Hollywood types are up in arms right now because they have lost a couple of roles because of some things they said or did recently. They seem to think this is infringing on their freedom of speach. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen, no one has to agree with you, and no one has to hire you.

I think Thomas Payne would have loved Firefly.

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 10:03 AM

JEFFERSON

Gadsden left a lot of holes in his post, which Finn was kind enough to point out. Here are a few patches:
Quote:
Originally posted by gadsden:
One of firefly's central themes is the inborn, innate, irrevocable right of every man, woman, and responsible child to say, possess, or do anything, anywhere, at any time, without asking anyone's permission as long as they don't initiate force or fraud against another.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Sorry dude, but this is essentially one of the bases of postmodern political correctness.

Actually, the belief that you are free to do anything that does not initiate force or fraud against another is decidedly politically incorrect, to both the Left and the Right. Consider these actions, which do nothing to initiate force or fraud, which the Right considers unacceptable:
-Recreational drug use.
-Homosexual marriage.
Consider these actions, which do nothing to initiate force or fraud, which the Left considers unacceptable:
-Possessing and carrying a personal weapon, whether it be a handgun, rifle, shotgun, or machine gun. Notice I said "possessing and carrying," not "brandishing."
-An adult deciding which experimental, unproven medical treatments or medicines that adult wants to try, while the adult resides in this country.
Consider these actions, which do nothing to initiate force or fraud, which both the Left and Right consider unacceptable:
-Voluntarily withdrawing from social safety net programs, and having your taxes reduced by the amount used to fund those programs. For example, voluntarily giving up all claims to benefits from social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and Welfare, and discontinuing paying into those programs.
-Doing with your property as you wish, as long as it does not affect another's property (harming another's property is considered initiating force). Two examples: you can't build a shopping center on your farm if it's zoned agricultural, even if you take steps to ensure that the noise and traffic do not spill over onto your neighbor's property. And, if the local government decides that your property would generate more tax revenue for the community if it were turned into a shopping center, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is reason enough to justify eminent domain. Anyone here live in a house that wouldn't generate more tax revenue if it were taken over and turned into a car dealership? Then guess what, you don't own your property; the government does and you use it at their largesse.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well actually his name was Abraham Lincoln, and he had nothing in common with Lenin. Abraham Lincoln was not a Marxist. Although I do agree that he may have overstepped his bounds in arguing against the Succession, but that's another whole hill of beans.

1. Lincoln and Lenin both suppressed criticism of the war they declared. Abraham Lincoln's order to General John Dix, issued on May 18, 1864: "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . The editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers."
2. Lincoln and Lenin both claimed the power to accuse individuals of sedition or treason, and have them held without being charged or seeing a lawyer. That is, they both suspended habeus corpus.
3. Lincoln and Lenin both used military force to keep territories under their power that wanted to seceede. By the way, in January of 1848 Lincoln said, "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better."
4. Lincoln oversaw the slaughter--without regard to age, gender, or combat status--of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the shelling and burning of entire cities. Lenin, with better technology, slaughtered millions instead of just hundreds of thousands.
5. Lincoln brought secret police to America, as did Lenin to the Soviets.
6. Lincoln enforced tariffs on goods that the southern states wanted to import from overseas, forcing the southern states to buy from the north at higher prices. At the same time that he forced the south to buy more expensive northern goods, he imposed price controls on products that the south produced, so that the north could buy their cotton and food cheaper. Lenin also imposed strong, centralized, economic control.
7. Lincoln and Lenin were both hypocrites when claiming they were waging war to free the oppressed. Slave labor was used to build the US Capitol building while the war went on. Lenin instituted slave labor camps for those who disagreed with him.
Does this mean Lincoln was also a Marxist? No. It simply means that Lenin and Lincoln were both Authoritarians, who imposed a strong, centralized government on millions of unwilling subjects who wanted only to be left to decide their own fate.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Tyranny of the Majority? You prefer, instead, the Tyranny of the Minority? ...You have an interesting view on political theory. On one hand you argue that Abraham Lincoln is Marxist for his disagreement with Succession, then on the other hand you embrace Marxist ideals of minority rule.

I prefer no tyranny at all, whether imposed by the majority or minority. Here are three kinds of governments:
Democracy: 10 people vote on what to have for lunch. 6 pick pizza, 4 pick hamburgers. The majority wins and 4 out of 6 people are forced to spend their money on something and do something they find objectionable...or else the 6 will use force against them.
Tyranny: 10 people vote on what to have for lunch. 1 picks pizza, 9 pick hamburgers. The dictator wins and 9 out of 10 people are forced to spend their money on something and do something they find objectionable...or else the 1 will use force against them.
Voluntaryism/Unanimous Consent/Thomas Jefferson's Classical Liberalism: 10 people vote on what to have for lunch. 6 pick pizza, 4 pick hamburgers. 6 people order pizza, 4 people order hamburgers, they all sit wherever they please and eat what they want...and no one threatens to use force. Unless you make a grab for my bacon cheeseburger, that is.
Which of those three systems do you find morally acceptable?
Admittedly, a perfect system of Voluntaryism/Unanimous Consent/Classical Liberalism is impossible. Is that any reason to tolerate less than we could have?
To bring this back on topic, "Firefly politically incorrect":
I respectfully submit to you that Firefly challenges one of our most cherished politically correct beliefs: that a majority has the moral right to impose its will on a minority, or even an individual. Again, every man, woman, and responsible child has the inborn, innate, irrevocable right to say, possess, or do anything, anywhere, at any time, without asking anyone's permission as long as they don't initiate force or fraud against another. Even if the majority disagrees with what they have to say, possess, or do.

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 10:06 AM

JEFFERSON

I apologize for boldfacing the entire previous post. It was accidental.

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 10:35 AM

LORA

I am impressed.

Ya'll have only missed one thing I like about the characters in this show: they have dignity. They all treat each other with dignity, or get banished from the dinner table.

Dignity + Responsibility + Liberty = Serenity?

"Is there any way I'm gonna get out of this with honor and dignity?"

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 11:55 AM

PARKWHELEN

I think people read too much into the politics. It's fiction.....a portal to get away from reality. I'm in the military and as right wing as you find them, but I love the West Wing which is as liberal as they come and I love this show too. I can care less about the politics! I just love the story lines and the characters. It's not real. It has nothing to do with our government and what's right or wrong today.

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 11:57 AM

NOTTHEONE

Quoting:
I respectfully submit to you that Firefly challenges one of our most cherished politically correct beliefs: that a majority has the moral right to impose its will on a minority, or even an individual. Again, every man, woman, and responsible child has the inborn, innate, irrevocable right to say, possess, or do anything, anywhere, at any time, without asking anyone's permission as long as they don't initiate force or fraud against another. Even if the majority disagrees with what they have to say, possess, or do.
__________________

I agree with you in all but one aspect. It is definitely part of the U.S. mindset to believe that "every (one) has the...right to...do anything...as long as they don't initiate force or fraud..." You claim that it's not, but this is something that we are all taught in elementary school, it is held up as an ideal, and put forth as the primary reason for the founding of the country, the central message of the Declaration of Independance, and the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Of course, it's ALSO part of the US mentality to believe that the will of the majority is always right. The two beliefs are both part of our way of life, and neither could ever be called politically incorrect. The only political incorrectness is when someone points out that the two are mutually incompatible. That's when people start getting upset.

as to whether the show actually points out the incompatibility of the two, I haven't noticed it. It might, but I'd need examples pointed out to me.

<><>
Take my love, take my land,
Take what you can't understand.
I still have my DVD.
You can't take the sky from me...
Cancelled now, fade to black,
tell us it ain't coming back,
Cut off my cable TV
you can't take the sky from me...
There's no show that I can see
But since I found Serenity
You can't take the sky from me...
<><>

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 5:55 PM

TURBO100

I think you may be looking in the wrong place for the reason that FireFly was canceled. I don't think it has anything to do with the current political climate, and much more to do with a lack of promotion of the show by Fox.

The reason that I think that you may be looking in the wrong place is that I loved Fire Fly, but agree with the President's statement that other nations are either with us or against us when it comes to fighting Terrorisim. I think the two subjects are apples and oranges.

Turbo100

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

Friday, December 26, 2003 7:33 PM

I know exactly why Firefly was cancelled, you state it yourself: lack of promotion by Fox Network. What I am suggesting is the view that Firefly's wide lattitude in dealing with moral issues may have made Fox Network and what they would consider potential viewers uncomfortable.

So if you think the president's statement is so concise, then why didn't we invade Iran, who we KNOW has harbored and abetted terrorists, to say nothing of what we already KNOW about its nuclear capabilities. Why aren't we invading N. Korea? Syria? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Countless African nations? Or are those apples and oranges too? It's fine and dandy to take out a murderous beast in a disfunctional country, but toss a blade of grass in the air while you are there and it will blow in the direction of another one.

Notice how anxious Iran is to bring Saddam to trial so "all can see the countries that have been dealing with him in the past", to paraphrase the official statement from Tehran. You think they don't relish that the facts will come out about our current Secretary of Defense, shaking hands with Saddam back when we wanted him to kick Iran's a$$? And where he got the helicopters to gas all those Kurds? Talk about gray area!

Don't get me wrong, it would be the biggest disaster ever for us not to finish what we started in Iraq, I just hope the rest of the country has the stomach to see it through. History only remembers the disasters, not the successes.

"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak!" - Jayne

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

Sunday, December 28, 2003 2:51 PM

TURBO100

I find your response interesting, however, I beleive that I must not have made the thrust of my previous post clear. The apples and oranges portion refered to my opinion that the political/moral factors in Firefly were unlikely to have had an effect on the Fox networks treatment of the program. I only pointed out my political opinion in order to support my theory. I did not intend to inflame a political debate, as I don't beleive that I will convince you to see things my way, or vice-versa, but back to the main point... Based upon much of the programing on Fox I think you are giving the decision makers of that network far too much credit. I just don't beleive their decisions are made on deep issues. They probably decided to spend their promotion assets on some silly reality program, making a bet that most of their viewers would respond better to that type of crap than a great show like Firefly.

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

Sunday, December 28, 2003 4:29 PM