JonArryn

Members
  • Content count

    1,190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JonArryn

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,737 profile views
  1. Enough digression, sure. I'm done with this subject after this post. And I have no idea why you are so attached to the word politics. It's a juvenile debate, concerning meaning of words, when everyone know what we're talking about. And your definition of the word is wrong. The word politics is specifically aimed at states and cities. So I don't know why we're even discussing this anymore. And no, race ain't a social construct. It's straight up science and things that separates races. Not saying any race is superior, but to say it's a political construct makes me question if you even believe in evolution theory. Soon the leftists wil go after biology too, just a question of time. You are clouded by your ideology so it's no use in even trying. And to say Freud and Jung are totally discredited today means you have no insight into what they laid the groundwork for. That there is a debate about Freud, sure. But to say it's totally discredited because that's the point of view from your political side, that just ridiculous.
  2. Good points. You didn't start anything really, but my response to it seemed to have opened a mini version of Pandoras Box in the thread. And as I said before, I didn't direct my points at you, but to society in general. But that people will have different politcal views is inevitable, and I kind of knew the political leanings here before I brought it up. People aren't telling artists what to do, yet. We'll disagree here but I think that art is more politicized today then it's ever been. When Lennon started becoming a political figure, people wondered what was going on, and this was late 60's. He even got flak from his band members for becoming to involved politically, and they thought it wasn't their role to play. Today every other musician is shouting from the rooftoops what party is the best, or what candidate people should vote for. So I just can't agree with you, that it's only because of my views that I see this. I think it's clear with facts. Marlon Brando is another example. When he stood up for the civil rights movement people were a bit surprised, and inspired. Artists before hadn't really done things like that, and today you see it all the time. I agree with you about realism to the story though, and your example regarding the Mk. experiments is a great one.
  3. Well, what you're referring to here is more about human nature then politics. Power structures that is inherent to humans are not what politics are about. As you linked the definition, it's quite clear. Politics is about affairs referring to states and cities. How a state should be built and hov government should be structured etc. Your example with clans is way before humans had cities or states, therefore it's not political in the sense that we have been debating. And that is one example. A lot of prehistorical art wouldn't have been made because of whole clans approval either. And it's hard to say anyway, there were both larger groups and smaller during a very large span of history. But painting a bull and different symbols on a cave wall makes a political point? I'd say the evidence is much more in favor for it having religious statements rather then political ones. And I don't know how much we should go into the history or our probably differing views of it but anyway. Were there power structures during this time? Of course. Out of necessity, people did what they were most suited for. Men hunted, women gathered and took care of children. Because a clan is built that way it's not a political point, it's how humans survived. Any other structure and the clan might not make it through winter. I know we won't agree, but this thing with everything being political is a pretty late view on it and pretty much a marxist one. You seem to like to repeat points a lot. You repeating them doesn't really enhance them, just a pointer. Two times often suffices. Well, you seem to be able to do this all night, which ideologically possessed people often can. If you think that the way society is going regards to free speech and how more and more things are affected by what is deemed pc and not, then by all means, that's on you. If people in art starts to give in because of what some people think is pc and not, then we will head in more of a totalitarian direction. Which you said you didn't want, but your opinions and statements say the opposite.
  4. Except that the greek word was Politika. And that literally means "affairs of the states". Says so in the first lines of the definition. I was referring to the discussions after Force Awakens was released. So basically almost two years ago. And since then Rey's character has been discussed and I don't think we're gonna bring anything new to it either. Jung and Freud are old, sure. So is Dostoyevsky. I don't think when things were made is much of a point to make at all. Agree with you on last part. Art is important and should discuss it. My pov is just that it doesn't have to be all art. Take from that what you will.
  5. Your definition of the word was wrong. But when in doubt, backtrack instead, sure. I have a vague recollection of maybe discussing The Force Awakens with you before, but I'm too lazy to look it up. And no, I wasn't triggered. I liked having a woman as the lead role and Daisy Ridley's look was great for the role. Before the film. The utter trite of writing and the terrible characterization changed it for me. A good female jedi character would have been great. A trite Mary Sue-type with no development what so ever. Not so much. How am I the only one wanting to discuss Billy? I specifically respond to your point about the character. I have no problems with the character. If he's gay that's fine and if he's straight that's fine. To be honest, I don't care about his orientation. But if he is gay, would it be weird to get all that pent up rage because of supressed homosexuality? Maybe you should google Freud or Jung and we could have a discussion about it after. Or maybe they're too patriarchal to be worthy of your time. And as for your point about political crisis, I agree. There is similar situations all across the globe now. But if you think Hillary would have brought the world in a better direction, then I suggest you look into her and her husbands past. The crisis you are referring too is brought on by the very same people that whine most about it.
  6. I never said it was about the current political system. And you seem to actually have kind of a weird take on the word too. From what I gather the word originated from the greeks, and they very much meant it in the sense of how to organize and govern a state, and in a smaller scale, how to organise groups. Seem like you are the one who isn't really sure about definitions. You seem to encompass all of the human nature aspects in the word politics, which was my point. If it originated with the greeks, that kind of disproves your point. Just check wikipedia and it will be a bit more clear. Well, many of the raging PC people tend to blend together. Maybe you're different, maybe not. You both gather in the same safe space rooms where you talk about how high you are above everyone else morally without every actually contributing to something. Well, my general point from the beginning was that I don't think today's current political climate has to affect such a large quantity of the art that gets made. Somewhere along the way, I got into a debate with you about semantics instead, which made it a lot less interesting, but you seem to enjoy it at least, so there's that. Of course, we need to treat political subjects in art. It's one of the best things about art. But that doesn't mean that we should sit with a magnifying glass and look for things to be triggered about. You seem triggered about Billy now too. And why? There are a lot of great gay characters in fiction so why is this one a problem? Because it's 2017 and you come from the pc pov. No one whined about Omar, because he was one of if not the best character in The Wire. But if it's Billy, who is unsymphatetic, then we need to have a big debate about it. Double standards.
  7. Seemed like the patriarchy comment was a soft spot. Why use the word politics then? Seems like human nature explains it a hell of a lot better regarding those things. Or group dynamics, or the dominance hierarchy, or whatever one wants to call it. And secondly, is that you made a new debate with that. My post didn't even use the word politics, it used "political" regarding art. A straw-man argument from your side. We were discussing political points regarding Stranger Things, and you are well aware that we didn't talk about politics, but political points and different political sides. Another instance of you marking words instead of giving any constructive arguments. Kind of like when three people are having a discussion. Two people try to reach ideas and points, and one person is just sitting there and marking words. Your argument before was that all art is political, and I don't agree with that. This is the first post you started making different definitions, probably because you know that you don't have any other arguments to bring. Way to go trying to twisting it, but it didn't work.
  8. When out of arguments, make it personal. Calling someone coward over the internet, that's a first. I try and end a discussion that has amounted to nothing, on both sides, and you escalate. And then you make a rather poor try at making me agitated. That post says more about your psyche than mine I'd say. Your constant need of being correct on every line, online, well I could go in further on that, but it's not even worth it. And regarding virtue signalling. Wake up, honey. This is the internet, why would anyone virtue signal online? Anyone who's even checked youtube comments know that. If this was a discussion irl, you could make an argument about virtue signalling. But truth is, I stand for everything I've written, and think I have a lot of things to stand on. You haven't really taken a shot at my arguments, what you've done is taken a shot at my way of structuring sentences and choosing words. Sure, I might confuse it, I give you that. But it still doesn't change my point of view about this. I don't think all art is political and not all art has to be. Every good work of art raises interesting questions, but I don't agree about you that it's fundamentally about how we structure as a society. The political system is a pretty new addition to human history, if we don't have way separate definitions of it.
  9. I'm not bringing up politics. It was in response to Pilusmagnus post in the last thread. Go back and check it if you want to add something. Now you just seem to want to pick a fight or something. I wouldn't mind having a constructive debate about these things, but I don't think we're gonna find some common ground here any way.
  10. Nice. Hadn't thought of it that way. I did bring it up. But you seemed intent on continuing it. I was done but then you came in on your mighty horse, doing your tirade about how everything in society is about politics. Sure. Maybe just more obvious this season. Every time they were together in the beginning they were two and two. Maybe also because of Dustin and Lucas competition about Max. Regarding your point about Tolkien in the last thread. I think his work transcends politics so people don't care what his opinions were. For starters, it was different times, and secondly, the story and world is so interesting that those things don't really matter. That's my take on it.
  11. I did bring it up. As to whether we should debate them, of course. But do whites need to write more scripts for black people or do black people themselves need to tell their own stories? I don't know if every colored person constantly want to talk about racism. It's less about race, and more a question of culture. If you look for things to get annoyed about, you will find them. If you want to find a reason to fight when you have a night out, you will. But that doesn't mean that every person goes around throwing punches. It's the same thing with female roles. There's a lot of whining that there's not many roles for women, but many of the ones who criticize aren't willing to put in all the hard work and become screenwriters or directors. You think Quentin just got handed Reservoir Dogs? What you see there is 15 years of basically only watching and studying movies and then he gets to make a film. If there's such a need for more female characters, then they should start making them. Rey is a great example of how not to do it, but I don't wanna go in further on that. Agreed. Although I felt like this season showed even more that the group dynamic is Will/Mike and Dustin/Lucas. Or at least Will and Mike seem to be the closest, maybe because of shared experience in season 1. Will is closely connected to Eleven so maybe it's that aspect.
  12. I didn't bring it up as a bad thing. I just questioned if it's necessary to always debate these subjects. Sometimes we need to do it, and it's important, but sometimes maybe we don't need to think about current politics when we're enjoying art. Go to youtube and type in Denzel Washington or Morgan Freeman so you can hear the argument from their side too maybe. Poor choice of word there. Not redemption, but a closure arc then. I'm aware of the debate about Barb, but why it's become such a thing is beyond me. A minor, uninteresting character that they spent way too much time on in season 2 just because it's mentioned online. It's never a good sign when creators starts to pander to what people discuss online. And btw, Barb wasn't killed by evil people, she was taken by a supernatural force. Which is kind of a thing when you make a show with supernatural elements. And last time I checked ignorance isn't defined by how much you are updated about twitter. But I guess that's where you spend a lot of time so you can bring down the patriarchy once and for all.
  13. Well. I don't agree with your statement. Nothing in society can be separated from politics? Humans have been around for way longer then we even thought of political systems, so your argument doesn't cut it. You're basically saying, it just is that way. One of the reasons the political climate today is as toxic today is because no side can hande a regular debate anymore. Maybe when politics zip into every little tihing, even into how kids dress for halloween, maybe that is part of the problem. But hey, screw that, that's not marxist, so no need to even listen to that argument. Me thinking Hollywood is a cesspool have nothing to do with my political views. It's less to do about class, and more about human behavior. I agree, I have no problem with how they treated it this season. They even made it humorous, which was fresh. The problem I see it is when every little cultural thing has to be measured and if it doesn't make the pc checklist then it's gonna be one hell of a debacle. I don't think the russians have discovered it yet. It seems pretty contained to Hawkins as of the latest season. Although I guess that could be worked in the show if they wanted it. If you're interested about russians during the Cold War you can check out The Americans. One of the best shows in recent years and the first four seasons are brilliant storytelling and character work. A bit different to Stranger Things though. And why is Brenner alive? I'm beginning to question the plan the writers has for this. It's never a good thing to bring in villains who already have a complete arc. Running out of stories, because he was in no way that compelling so we need him another season either. And as another poster said, why did they make a whole story arc about redemption for Barb? I don't think Nancy and Jonathans storyline this season worked at all. The show seems to work best when it focuses on Eleven and the kids, with some side arcs weaved in. And I agree with everyone about Steve. He was one of the highlights this season, and especially his interactions with Dustin.
  14. Well. I didn't mean to turn this into a political deabte, so I apologize since I was the one that brought this up. And my bad for bringing up leftists, unwarranted and not meant at anyone specific. I may have come on a bit too strong, since this is a debate I've had both irl and online quite recently. And I enjoyed this season very much, and didn't mind what they did regarding race. But my point was more in general. The same way that there was this huge debate about the character of Quiet in MGSV, a game I played a while ago. There were a lot of criticisms about the characters clothes and how sexist it was. But if you actually play the game it is explained and Quiet is without a doubt the most interesting and badass character in the game. We differ on this point, but I still think that it's important to keep some pc things out of art, for different reasons. We have these debates today about things which makes no sense. The way there are made issues out of pretty much anything that doesn't fit with some peoples point of view. Anyway, a bit rambling but just wanted to clarify it.
  15. Uhm... dafuq. Where in my text did you see me claiming that? I said not all shows need to make points about racism, but you can interpret that any way you like I guess. What it boils down to is this. This is a completely fictional story. Therefore, if it wants it can treat racism, and if not, fine. To say that we need to make points in our art about racism because of today's society is where I don't agree. But I guess you and your lefties can talk about how racist and sexist this statement was tomorrow, so go ahead.