a thoughtful web.
Share good ideas and conversation.   Login or Take a Tour!
War's badges given
_refugee_  ·  1994 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Free speech is exhausting  ·  x 2

You don't have to tolerate hate speech. You can argue against it or you can go somewhere it can no longer reach you.

You aren't required to engage with speech of any form, hate or otherwise.

OP may feel he has a moral or personal obligation to speak up against certain kinds of hate speech. Kudos to OP, he is doing a valuable service. However, that's his choice and it's not mandated by any entity and he can opt out at any time.

You aren't required to enter a debate with hate speech. You aren't required to accept hate speech. You aren't required to believe it.

Hate speech is protected because it is speech, and because defining sub-types of speech into categories like "hate speech" cannot in any way be imagined as objective. And if we start only protecting subjective sub-categories of speech we are in for a much bigger world of trouble than having to hear the college religious nut go off about abortions again.

War - this is honestly more directly aimed at you, tbh.

You don't have to engage in free speech or provide responses to hate speech. Some would say that not reacting, that ignoring hate speech, denying it an audience, is the best thing that you can do.

I don't agree. I think it is vital to speak up against perceived wrongs; we all have our own set, but for instance, say something blatantly racist or sexist in my eyesight and I'm going to call you out on it.

Except you're totally right. It's exhausting. Sometimes you want to just have a conversation. Sometimes you just want to vent about your day. Sometimes you want to just feel calm, not incited to anger, not riled up. Sometimes you want to just walk away. The more standing up against hate speech you do the more exhausted you get.

But you are standing up because you choose to stand up because you see an injustice and refuse to let it stand. To me that is real character. It is a person with no skin on the line other than being a witness who says, "You know what? No. I will not be a witness to this, I will not let this stand." You are standing up because you know it sucks but someone has to do it, you know someone has to do it, and you aren't going to sit on your ass looking around for "someone." You'd sit on your ass forever if you did that.

Having character, having things that you as a person stand for, and then backing those morals and beliefs up with frequent refusals to tolerate those who propagate ideas and lifestyles which are completely counter to those morals? That is exhausting. Especially if you are a decent person who sees nuance in things and doesn't want to fight people all the time. Who wants to like people, give them the benefit of the doubt, who doesn't want to be seen as aggressive or antagonistic or "that fucking annoying fucker, bringing up race arguments again." (I imagine the Westboro Baptists do not find themselves particularly exhausted at the end of the day; I imagine they cackle with glee, actually.)

It is exhausting to stand up for what you believe in. But the only reason you are able to do so is because of free speech.

We cannot limit speech based on our feelings about the content because what will end up happening is that others will limit our speech because of our feelings and our content. We can only choose whether or not to tolerate it; to serve as an audience; to speak up, debate, or challenge it.

There are users here who have left because they got tired of standing up. More's the pity: no one has stepped in to fill their shoes. And that's what happens when voices of dissent get beaten down into silence, they stepped all over, forced to repeat themselves and their arguments again and again, forced to reduce their existence to constantly arguing with different bigots over the same shit every day because guess what? There will always be more bigots. There will always be more innocent ignoramuses.

It fuckin' sucks.

All I can say is shoulder on and be the voice of dissent and keep being it. Because the voices of dissent are vital, and few, and necessary.

insomniasexx  ·  2119 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: I asked.  ·  

So it's been almost 24 hours. I wanted, and somehow expected, a lazy, lovely, hungover day with my man. No one tells you these things. That was not happening.

It's been 24 hours of phone calls, questions, screeches, screams, details and so much more. We got it from my family and a few of my close friends around midnight last night. Then the 4am messages from East Coasters starting rolling in. I could hear brother's (amazing) girlfriend scream from 3,000 miles away. randomuser attempted to tell his mother yesterday but she wasn't answering the phone. So she found out via Facebook and immediately texted, "YOU GO AND GET ENGAGED BUT DON'T EVEN TELL YOUR OWN MOTHER?!" Whoops. We are never going to hear the end of that one.

Plus, it was technically still a work day today. And we were both battling a hangover. Luckily, the engagement is an AMAZING distraction from due dates. I missed at least 3 deadlines today and they're all stoked! Who knew?!

I haven't felt more loved in a long time. People I haven't talked to in forever came out to say hi, say congrats, and say lovely things. I got to catch up with people I haven't talked to in ages: high school friends, college friends, old teachers, family members, Hubski friends, friends of friends, ex-coworkers, current co-workers, people I didn't even realize I was (facebook) friends with. I am so grateful for Facebook today -- seriously. Like I just post one thing and the whole world knows.

As hectic as it's been today, I am so happy. My cheeks hurt from the non-stop smiles. Even though randomuser and I are groaning at our non-stop blooping, buzzing, and ringing phones, it's amazing to talk to everyone and hear everyone's well-wishes. We are so thankful to have so many awesome people that are a part of our life. And like......the fact that so many people get to share our joy and our love is pretty mind-boggling.

So, to everyone who commented here, messaged me, texted me, etc --- thank you! I love you all with all my heart, and I'm so happy that we have all found this amazing little corner of the internet and we have developed these terrific little internet relationships. "Feelings n stuff" (- _refugee_). "Oh yeah...feelings? Feelings are good." (-lil)

I remember when I was hearing every detail about b_b's wedding....and then the stories from mk's and thenewgreen's and forwardslash's (who did it right, BTW) I was like "I am never doing this. This sounds like hell. Never."

I guess never has arrived. It's amazing. And hellish. But it's amazing. But also....but also....I think the real hell is approaching. Very quickly.

Someone save me.

kleinbl00  ·  2180 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Untitled Novel Series - Exposition  ·  

It's the most important question for everybody else. The most important question for you is "what do I want to explore?" and everything here is a great answer to that.

I've optioned two screenplays and have a novel at a boutique in NY. You have more layout than any project I've ever worked on, and I worked with an MIT astrophysicist to lay out a plausible architecture for Alpha Centauri A/B because I needed day/night cycles and moon behavior. The trick is to funnel the part you find interesting into a part the reader finds interesting. Plot a story that exposes these aspects of your world as viewed through the eyes of memorable characters.

The world is figured out. There will be changes but they'll be dependent on what you need, not what you want. Now the trick is to determine who you want to explore it with.

jfinster  ·  2208 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Star Wars: The Force Awakens - Comic-Con 2015 Reel  ·  

Give me a few days and I'll make a try and write up a separate post going into more detail about it.

But to give you a reply now, I don't think he ever understood the original star trek crew, or the ethos of the franchise, what made star trek unique. He actually says it himself, here's a few clips and some quotes.

JJ Abrams on Star Trek - Interview - Film4

    As someone who was never a fan of Star Trek, when I started working on the first star trek movie we did, I really approached it from a sort of movie-goer's perspective, which is what do I want to see, what would make me excited. I had to do it in that genuine way and not in a 'oh they'll love this', or 'the trekkies will want that' because I don't know.

    I remember as a kid I didn't get him (Kirk). He was too handsome, he was too swaggery, he was too cocky, and you know, full of himself.

    Spock was far smarter than I was, Bones was much grumpier than I was, you know. So my point is that, while, I didn't connect with any of those characters, including Sulu, including Uhura...

J J Abrams discusses Star Trek and Star Wars

    I think that part of it might be that I have a kind of ADD, of kind of, wanting things to happen and sometimes I have to be reminded by people smarter and wiser than myself to just calm down, and to just let something play, you don't need to have another, sort of, thing happening right there.

    Though I was never a Star Trek fan as a kid, since I was eleven years old I was a fan of Star Wars, I feel like I'm one of those fans.

When he was interviewed on the daily show by Jon Stewart, he said that he was never a trekkie and that “It always felt too philosophical”.

So to sum up what he has said:

- He was never a fan.

- Didn't know what trekkies, the fans, would want.

- Didn't 'get' or connect with any of the main characters.

- Had difficulty with the slower, less action-focussed pace. Had to be told when he was cramming unnecessary elements/events.

- Equates being a Star Wars fan to also being a Star Trek fan (They're completely different in tone).

- Didn't enjoy the franchise's thoughtful, philsophical leanings.

I think when you put it all together in one place like this, it's obvious that he was the wrong person to direct the reboots. There was no way he was going to stay true to the original tone, spirit, characters. It was always going to be his re-imagning, that is, the re-imaging of someone who didn't understand or like Star Trek. A recipe for disaster.

This youtuber makes some good points and I'd recommend you watch that clip, but to paraphrase the best bits for you;

It is the philosophy that sets Star Trek apart, without it Star Trek is just another space story.

The philosophy of Star Trek is that humans are capable of creating a fair and just society, so we should do that. We can be better so we should be better.

I would also add another part of it's philosophy is that humans can work together peacefully with alien races who seem completely different to us, but through perseverance we can overcome conflict and better ourselves and others (when Star Trek first came out this was a metaphor for cooperation between different cultures and ethnicities). None of this is apparent in Abrams's Star Trek.

What upsets me the most is that you think the reboot can still be Star Trek if you remove that. If you think movie-goers want movies with huge firefights then that's ok, you can have huge firefights and still have the movie be Star Trek. That's not my problem, but if the main point of the movie is the firefights, then you've done it wrong.

I appreciate that Abrams wanted to make the reboot attractive to new audiences, but he threw away the core of what set Star Trek apart from other sci-fi action/drama. It's because he didn't want to make a Star Trek movie, he wanted to make a sci-fi action movie and the Star Trek franchise just happened to be the one he was given to work with. I feel like he took advantage of a pre-existing franchise that he should have respected instead of trying to re-mold it into his own (non-fan's) vision.

In the process of re-molding it to his own vision, he mangled characters that have been loved for decades. He didn't do justice to any of the characters in my opinion, not a single one, but I'll just talk about Kirk and Spock here because they are central to the original star trek crew, and Abrams got them so badly wrong.

- Kirk is a brilliant and daring starship captain. He's not afraid to break regulations to do what he thinks is right, and not afraid to take risks when the stakes are high. That being said, he doesn't take his position or choices lightly. Abrams seems to misinterpret this as Kirk as always being reckless and having no respect for authority, and instead of portraying Kirk as a unique thinker, he simply skates around on good luck and comes across as flippant and arrogant. Kirk can be a bit of a womaniser, but in Abrams's hands Kirk is just a horny frat boy.

- Spock is half vulcan, half human and an amazing scientist. He usually plays the devil's advocate when Kirk is pondering a problem, and draws the best out of Kirk. An ongoing theme is that his calm vulcan side balances Kirk's more emotional human tendencies. In Abrams's hands, Kirk and Spock are like two bickering kids. Spock in particular seems to have the emotional control of a child, when infact the opposite should be true (Spock is the most calm and composed out of the crew). Yes Spock had internal conflicts between his vulcan and human natures, but Abrams doesn't understand how to portray this with restraint and goes totally over the top with it. Spock stumbles around like a hormonal teenager, throwing tantrums and snogging crewmembers when their minds would have been on the task at hand, bringing an incredibly embarrassing juvenile light to what was a sophisticated intelligent character. His vulcan nature sometimes isolated him from the mostly human crew, making him come across as aloof, but in Abrams's Spock is just self-righteous and possibly slightly racist/species-ist

I don't want to go into plot here, I've already gone on too long, but there are so many ridiculous things from both movies that frustrate me. Military/scientific crew members taking the time during an emergency situation to have a relationship squabble, magical rejuvenating blood that turns up conveniently, a female weapons scientist that is totally useless and gets the most attention when she takes her clothes off, technologies that turn up to solve a plot hole that would break the rules of the universe and are never heard of again, Spock the scientist ends the climax of the movie with a fist fight, old spock happens to be hiding out in the one cave on the entire planet that Kirk is dropped nearby, Kirk becomes captain after smuggling himself on board... The list goes on and on and makes me angry just thinking about it all, I'll have to save it for that other post.

To finish up, I give you ye ole' classic Hitler reacts to new Star Trek movie although youtube is crawling with vids from trekkies who didn't like the reboots.

To me, Abrams's Star Trek movies are just sci-fi action movies slapped with the Star Trek brand. If you changed the names of the characters and made their ship different, there would be nothing to tell you it was Star Trek at all. It is possible to reboot a franchise and make it new and interesting to the old fans while attracting new ones, but I don't think Abrams managed that. Instead of looking at the challenges facing humanity as it ventures into space, he focussed on the action scenes and what felt like adolescent angst. He took what was a thoughtful franchise about humanity exploring the cosmos and turned it into a soap opera with action set in space.

Taking all this into account, I think you can see why I might be nervous about The Force Awakens :) I just don't think the guy has good taste, I don't trust him.