Ghjhero

Members
  • Content count

    881
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ghjhero

Recent Profile Visitors

643 profile views
  1. Basically. It seems to be the only "issue" they can agree upon. They perpetually have the mindset of an opposition party.
  2. I don't know the issue as much as I would like, but I vaguely remember hearing it was considered a free speech issue because it originated over an attack ad against Hillary Clinton and she or her affiliates tried to shut it down. That could be totally bonkers, but that's all I can say at the moment.
  3. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It sure looks that way.
  4. The plot was compromised by the fact that the world building overtook the few already shallow characters I was interested in and made it hard for me to care about them. By the end, I wasn't really interested in what was happening, I was reading merely to finish the series.
  5. I have to agree. Malazan started off with a lot of promise but compromised the plot and characters for a lot of unnecessary world building that ultimately led to the demise of the series. Erikson could also have benefited from a strict editor, especially in the later books. To me it shows that world building ain't shit if that's all the author focuses on. Yet RBPL ranked Tolkien's creation (which I adore) in the same order as Erikson so it just goes to show there's no perfect formula to creating a good fantasy series based on emphasis alone.
  6. He seems intent on ruining his own story. The more he speaks the worse it gets.
  7. I really hope this isn't true. Far too simple a solution to keep the main character alive...
  8. Is that the Baby Kellhus theory? What is it exactly?
  9. WHAT? I swear he said in the AMA "Kellhus is dead". Do you have a link to the questions at Zaudunyannicon?
  10. Ah I see. I took the term at face value and thought tSA would fit the description. Maybe I am one of "the few" (heh heh) but I greatly enjoyed the series, despite its overly hyped flaws.
  11. So 2+ pages into this thread and no one has brought up The Second Apocalypse? *Gasps internally* It might not be exactly what you're looking for and it is very dark. But if you're looking for sorcery and lots of it, this is your series. The series has been touted as the second most popular behind only asoiaf on this forum. I personally have to rank it as asoiaf's equal if not higher.
  12. Well said. I don't disagree. What you are arguing for is using government (benevolently of course, how could it be anything other?) to impose your will forcefully on those who do not share the same world view as you do. That's what it boils down to. You may try to dress it up and sell it differently, but as dmc515 and Manhole have already said that is incredibly reminiscent of fascism. Once again I'll say that freedom of speech is not the same as allowing acts of violence to go unpunished. Their ideology should be combatted every step of the way, I'm not apologizing for their behavior in any way. All I maintain is we uphold the rule of law in support of a liberal democracy in a non-violent manner. It's not about having faith in government, of that I have very little, it's about upholding a system that protects the inherent rights of the people from violation by an oppressive government.
  13. I get your frustration and anger. I really do. I'd like to say I have the answers to your questions, but I do not. Civil Rights will always be a hard fought battle, but that battle is doomed if at the end of the day we ourselves become the oppressors. Taking away a group's rights, no matter how abhorrent and hateful their ideology, will not serve to advance the rights of the oppressed. If that were true hate itself would have been made illegal a long time ago.
  14. I'll third this. One thing that i'd like to throw in here. There's a big difference between promoting the right to free speech of all individuals and allowing those individuals to commit acts of violence based on their speech. I think the narrow divide between the two has a tendency to get lost at times and that looks to be happening here. I'd also like to respond to @Sword of Doom's apparent belief that Rule of Law is arbitrary at times and does not mean shit. The answer to why the Rule of Law is important lies in your very criticism of it. We should continually be ensuring our legal system reflects that of a free and equal liberal democracy. We should be incredibly proud at the leaps and bounds we have made since this nation's creation, but to throw away the Rule of Law is to slip towards transgressions such as slavery and Jim Crow. The system is not perfect, but to pretend we can inoculate ourselves from all threats to our security is to abandon the very liberties we supposedly hold dear.
  15. Ohhhhhh!!! That makes a lot more sense. I read the line about Cilculiccas recognizing the Grandmaster's intent as an aggressive action. Guess it was just the dolour making problems for everyone again. Something else that came to mind. In the AMA Bakker hinted at Eanna featuring in the next series. Is there any evidence to suggest we will meet Nonmen that evaded the Inoculation and thus the Womb Plague?