Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [cerebus] The Golden Age of Porn (was: Re: OT: Chaykin)

Expand Messages
  • ctowner1@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/31/2003 7:33:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... nice - couldn t have said it better. e L nny
    Message 1 of 451 , Jun 1, 2003
      In a message dated 5/31/2003 7:33:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rainmandu@... writes:

      --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Rick Sharer <rlsharer@y...>
      > --- rainmandu2 <rainmandu@e...> wrote:
      > > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Rick Sharer
      > > <rlsharer@y...>
      > > wrote:
      > > 
      > > > Still, being unable to control one's own lusts and
      > > > urges is a *weakness*, not a strength, correct?
      > > >
      > > > TTM
      > >
      > > And here we go. Because "lusts and urges" (as
      > > defined by the
      > > Moral Guardians of the Universe) must be controlled.
      > Damn straight!  Heh.
      > For example, let's say John has an uncontrollable urge
      > to hate black people, just because their skin is dark.
      > Would the Moral Guardians of the Universe on the other
      > side of the aisle want to control that?  Why, you
      > betcha.
      > What I am saying is that human beings, as a sentient
      > species, should not be slaves to their urges,
      > 'uncontrollable' or otherwise...as long as someone is
      > *in control* of those urges, well now that's a
      > different story.
      > But yeah, no one likes others telling them what they
      > can and cannot do...what I am speaking of is *oneself*
      > not being able to tell *oneself* what to do because
      > *oneself* is a slave to fulfilling his own desires
      > above all else.
      > TTM

      Okay. So John hates black people. Well, fuck John. But John has
      a right to think whatever thoughts he wants about black people.
      He has a right to hang out with other like-minded people, and to
      publish (if he so chooses) assorted manifestos on the subject.
      He has a right to hang "collectible" propaganda posters and Nazi
      youth slogans in his house or apartment. Now, let's say John
      works in Human Resources. If it can be proved that John throws
      away applications from black people or in any way discriminates
      against them in the workplace, then John should be fired. If John
      walks down the street and verbally assaults black people, John
      should get his ass kicked. John's urges are John's business,
      and in a free society, individuals will decide for themselves
      whether to hang out with John or do business with him. It's only
      when the government gets involved in punishing John for his
      views that I have a problem with it. In fact, the only time the
      government should get involved is when John's views go from
      just being thoughts in his head, or words that he expresses, to
      actual acts of violence or discrimination. John is an idiot. But in a
      free country, John has that right.

      Another good example would be someone who has a
      religious-based hatred of homosexuality. They have every right to
      believe whatever they want to believe. But they don't get to refuse
      to hire someone because they're gay or lesbian. They don't get to
      deny them housing. The government isn't punishing people for
      not liking homosexuals, the government is protecting the rights
      of homosexuals to live their lives unmolested by people who
      believe that their opinions about them give them to right act
      against them.

      So, yeah, people should control their urges, especially their
      urges to hate and to discriminate. But they shouldn't control their
      urges in situations where their urges can't be proven to cause
      harm to anyone (a gay or lesbian couple holding hands in public,
      for example). If you have the urge to wear a shirt that says "Adam
      and Eve, not Adam and Steve," that's your right. If someone else
      has the urge to wear a shirt that says "Out and Proud" or
      whatever, that's their right. And, yes, it's their right even in front of
      your children.


      nice - couldn't have said it better.

      L nny
    • Chris W
      ... It s still one of my favorites. It doesn t make my top five for the desert island list because it s not quite the type I d want to watch over and over
      Message 451 of 451 , Jun 22, 2007
        Larry <larrytheillini@...> wrote:
        --- In cerebus@yahoogroups .com, Chris W <show_me68508@ ...> wrote:
        > "Roger Rabbit", however holds up about as well as the best
        > animated cartoons do. It's fun, it's funny, it's zany,
        > there's enough of a story to keep you interested,
        > and it's a nice 'feel good' movie.

        It's still one of my favorites. It doesn't make my "top five for
        the desert island" list because it's not quite the type I'd want to
        watch over and over and over ad nauseum, but I did enjoy it enough
        to see it several times that summer, and I was already getting
        disenchanted with movies in general by then.

        It has in common with (the first) Star Wars the fact that the
        primary reason for the movie is the special effects, and while I
        won't claim it was the "religious experience" that Star Wars was, I
        was blown away by the visuals in Roger Rabbit as well.

        And unless I totally missed this aspect of our culture before, this
        movie gave us the term "toon" as short for "cartoon", just as Star
        Wars gave us "droid".
        ======  It's possible the movie (or rather, the novel "Who Censored Roger Rabbit" it was based on) gave us the term 'toons' for the actual characters, but decades watching the "Looney Toons" tv show would have given us the word for the cartoons.

        > Sure the plot about the freeway is stupid,

        I actaully liked that aspect of the film. It was a cartoonish plot,
        but given the type of movie it was, I don't consider that to
        be "stupid". It gave Doom a "realisitic" motive for his whole rise
        to power and the land grab at Toon Town--a sense that it's not just
        an act of cartoonish supervillainy, but a carefully calculated long-
        term manipulation with an air of menace behind it.

        Maybe it's just because I have relatives my mom's age who live in
        California, but the Red Car really did exist, and it's an ironic
        line but not a "parallel universe" sort of thing when Eddie
        says "Who needs a car in LA? We have the best public transportation
        system in the world!"
        ========  I only meant "stupid" in that it doesn't really fit with the means and ends that we associate with supervillains.  If anything, we'd expect a 'toon villain to be wildly grandiose.  "That wacky freeway idea could only be cooked up by a 'toon."

        > and the animation
        > is overdone, so that the characters never stop moving for a
        > second which gets irritating, but once Eddie Valiant starts
        > singing, you realize how well everything has been built up
        > to this point, and defeating Doom becomes that much more of a
        > vindication of all that's good and noble.

        "I'm sick of taking falls,
        Or bouncing off of walls.
        Without that gun,
        I'd have some fun,
        I'd kick you in the ..."


        - Larry Hart

        Bored stiff? Loosen up...
        Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.