Rippounet

They really don't. Neither of these shows has an actual plot - at least at this point. All of them are based on a simple premise that, as the names clearly imply, can be summed up as "look at this cool character doing their thing for 6 to 10 hours." The funny thing about the PT is that none of the three movies are easy to sum up in a single sentence. Yeah, I think this really hits the nail on its head. For all that people love talking about its poor execution, the core of the hate leveled at the PT is really that it was just too complicated. Like, suddenly this story about space knights/wizards had politics? People having lengthy discussions, and even meetings? Dude, I don't go to the movies to think about what I'm watching, just give me the cool characters and lots of pew-pew! The message was heard loud and clear, and the whole thing was dumbed down to the point where it's really obvious the plot isn't meant to matter anymore. This way you get all the cool stuff without the boring parts that were so difficult to write (and act/direct), and the kids are far less likely to ask complicated questions, because none of it is meaningful in any way! It's entertainment, fuck yeah!

Oh, is it that time of the year already? The PT vs ST debate tends to come down to plot vs visuals/execution. I tend to favor plot myself, and I think what the PT tried to do was actually quite ambitious: showing the fall of the hero/chosen one, while also addressing the wider political elements, in a blockbuster movie that has to be entertaining for all audiences, is almost impossible. I'd argue that the fall of the Jedi is/was a story for mature viewers, and thus a movie that could not be made. Not only do we all have different notions of what evil in politics looks like, but these are questions that are difficult to deal with in political history, and thus don't get represented well in cinema. Do we have a lot of good movies about the descent of Germany into Nazism? Of the corruption of the Russian or French revolutions? There's lots of movies about the fighting that ensues, and a few about historical characters or individuals. But the turn from democracy to authoritarianism is seldom well done, or if it is, it won't exactly be "entertaining," because it'll be too subtle and nuanced for a wide audience. Considering the challenges, I think the PT did all right. Palpatine's rise to power by fueling conflict and war is what I'd expect an evil character to do ; his speech in RotS ringed true then, and it still does now. Anakin's fall is what was poorly done in the movies, though a few Clone Wars episodes show us what it was meant to be. It's not great, but it's ok. The bigger problem is that StarWars movies are made with kids -and merchandising- in mind, and a lot of the goofier elements of the universe are not going to go well with the subject of political oppression. If you think about everything that Andor does well, I believe you'll see that it took doing away with most of the "magical/fairy tale" elements of StarWars. That was kinda possible in a tv show, but I just don't see how it could have ever happened in a StarWars movie. You'd have had kids leaving the theatres in tears by the third movie. On some level, Anakin killing the younglings is symbolic of what the movies should have been: the relentless destruction of innocence by the evil empire, until darkness prevailed in the galaxy. As much as I'd love StarWars to be the much darker universe of my headcanon, I also know that it never was and never will be.

This is why reading and understanding Noam Chomsky's work on the media is so important - regardless of what you think of the man's positions. It's not censorship per se, but come on, we all know how the media can choose to keep its reporting light on some elements while creating outrage on others. Sure it's been studied, but it's not like one needs an academic to understand how it works. Loosely connected, I was just typing this quote:

A good metaphor coming from advertisement. First we'll use our devices for everything. Then we'll run out of power. It's going to be grand.

So, how many worms have been eating Trump's brain?

Fiction once again anticipates reality: Braindead (2016) Trailer (seriously though, if you haven't seen this show, do watch it, it's hilarious)

"Fifty shades of incompetence" seems to be the core Tory principle.

Scot, there's a real problem about talking of progressive movements as "coerced change," as if any progressive cause should imply a cost-benefit analysis. It rests on the assumption that the baseline of society is a state in which people are "free" to go about their -economic- business without interference. In other words, it implies that everyone should be "free" to be indifferent to other people's suffering, and that to forcefully bring their attention to it is "coercion." It's not just that I don't adhere to such a view, I think it's patently false. A society in which people can systematically choose their own economic self-interest over collective social or moral issues is not "free," it's a dystopia that's hostage to the economic interests of the ruling classes. It's also a society that can't be sustainable in the long-term, because of the loss of social coherence and trust implied by rising inequality, as well as the negative externalities of unregulated economic activity. The individualism at the heart of such a society could easily be said to be un-christian . I would say it's in-human, because humans are social animals and human societies rest on the respect of the principles of equity and justice. Any society that promotes economic freedom at the expense of justice will sooner or later self-destruct - through unending social strife as well as unsustainable economic organization. Or, to put it differently, the proposition that "there is no such a thing as society" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the only thing it can lead to is turning Earth into hell for most of us. We're already at that point I believe. I'm not the one saying it too, the analyses can be found in multiple works by "serious" organizations such as the CIA or the WEF. Funnily enough, my defense of protest is far more relevant when talking about environmentalism, but if you can't even agree to protests against potential genocide, I don't think you could stomach the kind of protests that is necessary to transform our socio-economic structure.

Sunak was widely seen as potentially less incompetent than BoJo and Truss. I have no love for the man and his policies, but to blame him for Tory incompetence and division is really unfair.

Sure.

But we're not in a court of law Scot. You should just make your point instead of suggesting it. I personally can't answer your question because we need a definition of "hate speech" first.

Are rhetorical/leading questions a good way to have a discussion?

Yes, the point of a protest (or a strike) is to inconvenience. It's deeply ridiculous to describe this as "violence," but it's interesting to remember that such a perspective was spread by American businesses to fight unionism and socialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. The whole idea was to blame demonstrators rather than the evils they were protesting against. It's part of a greater American movement to reduce liberty to economic freedom. And indeed, if your society is organized around purely economic values, then any disruption can be perceived as "violence." But in truth, that means the protests only underline a fundamental problem of the society itself. And while I could merely point out that other countries don't view education as a privilege - to be paid for through one's hard work or personal wealth - I think it's best to remember that tuition fees in the US are grotesque by design. They exploded in the wake of social protests, and they are now meant to prevent social or political movements from spreading in universities. The same could be said, to some extent, of wage slavery without unions. If you need to get so work so badly that any protest along the way threatens your livelihood, perhaps the original problem is not the protest. I think you get the point. If there's violence in the story, it's the systemic economic violence against the masses. Which is perfectly deliberate.

By the US government? I know of works by journalists and academics of course, but the US government publishing a report directly attacking Big Oil like this feels new. If I've missed previous reports, I'd very much like to know. Big Tobacco eventually lost its PR battle, and the UK even seeks to prohibit younger generations from smoking. I think you're being a bit too cynical here in claiming no one's paid attention - obviously, some people have. Oreskes & Conway's Merchants of Doubt has been translated into nine languages, and is well-known in environmental circles I believe. There have been quite a few investigations, books and documentaries on Big Oil that, taken together have become hard to ignore. Again, there's knowing and knowing. As a rule, people do suspect Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, or Big Food of nefarious practices. But when evidence accumulates, such practices generally become harder to maintain. Goverments publishing their own research is often prelude to legislative action. If you're saying it will never quite be enough, I will probably agree with you. But it's exaggerated to say no one's paying attention. And come on, having these fuckers exposed is always reason to rejoice ; we should celebrate the few wins we get. We badly need them.

There's knowing and knowing. It's one thing to believe Big Oil has been systematically hindering any progress on climate change, and it's another to have a treasure trove of documents that prove it, detailing internal positions and strategies, curtesy of the US Congress. There's also a few names being named in there... The final sentence isn't surprising in itself, but it is a bit surprising to see it in a congressional report: I don't know how far this'll go. Maybe the Republicans burry the whole thing next year.

So it seems that according to this report from the US Congress, Big Oil has known about climate since at least the 1960s. Interestingly enough, the report attacks natural gas and carbon capture technology as fake solutions promoted by the fossil fuel industry. The first being obvious by now, but the second is refreshing. More stuff:

Today I learned about the Migaloo M5, a submersible super-yacht. Introducing the 165m submersible superyacht concept Migaloo M5 Hilariously, in French-speaking media, it is dubbed the "yacht of the apocalypse" designed to protect the "ultra-rich" from "the end of the world." One of the articles (Geo) starts with the line: "Yet another proof that the world is well."

Really enjoyed it, but it subverted my expectations until the very end. Though I believe... That's the point. I haven't read the book, but I think what the show tried to do is play with the viewer's expectations to teach us about Japanese culture and philosophy. From the start you expect it to be the story of how this European guy will help a Japanese lord become Shôgun. And of course, you expect him to look down on the Japanese at first, before realizing that the lord is super smart, noble, and honorable, and his followers are not just honorable, but also relatable and fun. And of course you expect him to fall in love with his beautiful interpreter, and for him to teach her how to live and love life again, as well as rescuing her from her brute of a husband. And at the end, he would become the Shôgun's right-hand man, a lord himself, and have a family with Mariko. It's the story I dreaded to see tbh (à-la Last Samurai), but thankfully the show systematically goes against such eurocentric tropes. As the story progresses, it pretty much subverts our expectations at every turn. Toranaga's tricks are not based on brilliance, but calloussness. Yabushige is kinda fun, but he's also a coward. Mariko's husband is not a brute, but is actually rather noble - and deeply in love with her. Blackthorne doesn't teach Mariko to love life again, and she chooses duty. And of course, Blackthorne doesn't help Toranaga at all ; instead he's just a funny pawn whose contribution is negligible. And even at the end, when you expect to at least get a grand battle and/or Toranaga take his title, nope, the show doesn't go there. And the big reveal (that Ishido will be betrayed) is not even well explained (I had to come here for a satisfying explanation ). Even the ship ends up a wreck, and Toranaga says if it is rebuilt he'll probably destroy it again. And I could be wrong, but I think this ending seeks to drive the point home, that this show was not about its plot. It wasn't about Blackthorne helping Toranaga become Shôgun, it wasn't about his story with Mariko, and it wasn't even about Toranaga becoming Shôgun. The show was really about Japanese culture, about discovering it through the eyes of a 17th century explorer, never understanding everything that goes on, never completely understanding it and being in control of things: you could live for decades with the Japanese, and they would still surprise you in every episode of the exchange. In the end it feels like each episode was about learning lessons about Japanese culture (politics, love, superstition, the place of women... etc) and its outlook on life, and that all the communication and translation problems were there to tell us how difficult it is to truly learn or be Japanese. And the final episode was about telling us that Blackthorne was always a mere pawn, that the plot didn't really matter, and that behind the honor and the rituals, Toranaga is just "like all of us," after power and prestige. The honor and rituals don't serve a purpose, they are merely about the aesthetics of mortality: you live, you die, so might as well make it beautiful, while never forgetting that it is all pointless in the end. Imho, either the show attempted something like this, or it really messed up its finale.

Saudi Arabia is by far the world's first oil exporter, with massive reserves. It could be a far better "irreplaceable" ally than Israel (or France). At least get your realpolitik right ffs.

My pillow talk is revolutionary.

I was about to post something like this. Hamas was never a formal military, it's something between a terrorist organisation and an insurgency. So unless you can formulate clear military objectives, "eliminating Hamas" basically means killing every single adult Palestinian - and a lot of the kids too. Which is what we've seen for over six months now. And there were quite a few of us, in the wake of Oct 7th, that saw how dangerous it was that the objectives formulated by the Israeli government were so vague. Quite obviously, we had doubts that Israeli forces would exercise restraint. Because anyone with a functional brain understands that "eliminating" an insurgency means genocide. Or, if one doesn't like the g-word, we can talk about massacre, slaughter, war crimes, crimes against humanity... etc. Basically everything Israel under Netanyahu has done in the past 6+ months, which was entirely predictable of course.

I wouldn't say "weird." Even a measured tit-for-tat approach requires rational actors. The paradox of the last few decades is that "rogue states" have behaved rationally, proving that despite their discourse/propaganda, they have the ability to de-escalate ; conversely, "liberal-democratic" states have shown an ability to fall prey to their own myths or propaganda, to the point where today we see the ability to openly engage in genocidal activities. It's not a good trend, and it's spectacularly stupid to celebrate it.

I don't think the issue is whether ChatGPT or other AIs are sentient. The issue is how do we prove we are. If everything that was once seen as proof of sentience (writing literature/poetry, writing/playing music, drawing/painting... etc) can be mimicked by programs then how do you prove that you are in fact sentient? Especially if even the confusion/metaphysical angst can be mimicked by a program... And it might seem trivial, but I really don't think it is. It's the question of "philosophical zombies," or as Nabokov put it, "the temptation of solipsism." If others can't prove to you that they are in fact human, then it is tempting to think you're the only one who truly thinks by himself, and all the others are just zombies/bots or secondary characters in your story. And again, it might seem trivial, but it really isn't. If you live in a world where you can no longer make the difference between AIs/bots and humans, then you will, by default, assume everyone else is a bot, and treat them as such. It all becomes one big video game. And in video games, it's not wrong to hurt or kill others. Or, if you're just on an internet board, there's no reason why you wouldn't start trolling people, because for all you know, they'r enot even real people.

We're worse than that: social primates with anxiety, obsessed with social status and sex. But if you build a society around that kind of truth, you're essentially creating a dystopian hellhole. You don't love humanity because it deserves to be loved (who the fuck could decide that?) ; you love humanity because you don't have a fucking choice, and living in a society that essentially makes human life worthless will sooner or later be hell for all but the most privileged.

Yes, but I'd like to unerline this passage: I think this points out that it's the specific combination of technology and capitalism that is so dangerous. So it depends how you want to define "Luddism." If we're talking about the historical movement, then yes, we should all be Luddites, because neoliberalism threatens to make any technology terrifying. But if we're using a more common sense of the word, I think it would be better to direct the rage at socio-economic structures instead of technology itself. I'd say Iain Banks had an interesting view of what AIs could provide humanity in a socialist perspective. One could argue that it's a rather paternalistic view, but I think such a view is warranted given history, and I'd rather take that than the absolutely moronic idea that "the market" will allow for the proper development and use of technology. Another way to put it is that I'm a bit reluctant to embrace Luddism, because the early days of computer science and IT offered incredible promises for humanity, that were only betrayed once massive corporations took over and redirected the entire enterprise toward maximizing profit. We still have remnants of the potential though, like wikipedia, and as I said earlier, communication really can be said to be a good in itself, so I'd rather target our corporate overlords than the machines.