Jump to content

ummester

Members
  • Content Count

    4,198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ummester

  1. Yes and departments of defense have nothing to do with starting wars. They are only diverse until they become a new cohesive culture or collapse. If they cohere and multiculturalism spreads globally, it will remove cultural diversity, they is no way around that logic.
  2. It's nice that you are resorting to playing the man over the ball, because you obviously don't want to deal with the question, so I will rephrase it for you: Diverse = different Multicultural = many cultures combined together If every human culture was equally multicultural - ie, every culture on Earth contained the same combination of cultural elements - how would any culture than be diverse from another? They wouldn't - they would all be the same. Global multiculturalism will dilute cultural diversity to none.
  3. It depends on what part of Rome's history you are looking at. At one stage the common belief was sodomy was only to be used on another man and only as a act of dominance. The values changed over time. At one later stage, yes, as with the Greeks, homosexuality, pederasty, female sodomy, bestiality and even pedophilia became common place and acceptable. I personally have nothing against whatever anyone gets up to in their bedrooms, so long as it is between consenting adults - so no children, animals or people that say no. But, as for what society and especially society's youth should be exposed to at what time, that is another matter. Consider the Roman Colosseum (considering just about all of what I mentioned above, plus all manner of killing was carried out for public spectacle) - what acts were depraved enough to negatively effect society? It's nothing to do with racism, color or ethnicity - its to do with keeping a value system that generates a better future for a given cultures offspring. Say I wanted to become Japanese - it is on me to learn the language, prove that I can abide by the cultural values and show that I have something to add to Japanese cultural as a whole. Otherwise, why should the Japanese take me? Why would any culture logically want to take another person that didn't fit or add to it? (note - that is rhetorical, I know many of the reasons most Western countries are currently employing wholesale immigration). I'm not sure that it is, it is just thrown around as being. I would argue that Western Culture is currently lost and in decline and, though I am not religious, I would also argue that Western Cultures belief sets were built upon Greek, Roman and Christian values over time. Now, I see a time when values are being fractured and dissipated, not growing in one direction or another. There are historical precedents for this occurring before and it never seems to end well.
  4. A culture is singular. Explain this, if every human culture was to become equally multicultural, where would the diversity be? Cultural diversity only exists because cultures (plural) are unique and singular - mixing them all together into a super culture destroys the diversity each originally had. Over time, removing diversity and competition leads to total stagnation.
  5. Variation within a given culture is a totally different thing to forced multiculturalism/diversity. How do you define a culture? I personally think, at the least, a culture needs shared language and belief/values. Traditionally cultural beliefs/values are derived from theology - but they do not have to be, a culture can be defined as secular and English speaking, for instance.
  6. The flip side is also true, diversity can bee seen as a euphemism for cultural destruction. Multiculturalism is, in itself, an oxymoron - as cultures are always singular. I think you will find it is the swing against progressivism that is growing more rapidly ATM, as progressive politics become more and more detached from what most people understand as normal social limits. No, I accept that - but there is a difference between change that occurs naturally over time, due to trade and invention - let's say globalization - and change that is mandated through corporate or government interference - lets say globalism.
  7. Ok - considering I am ethnically more Indian than British and still think Western culture is greater than any developed since the Old Egyptian Kingdoms when Akhenaten invented monotheism - I kind of consider you misguided.
  8. Or perhaps it;s just because the West, by and large, is over globalism and progressivism. There is no need to make it about color, or ethnicity - it is culture, pure and simple. Western culture is the greatest the world has ever known (in this Epoch) and destroying it because corporations require suppressed global wages is just not acceptable.
  9. Well that is why you have to decide, at the onset, whether you are writing a saga or a serial. A saga has a defined ending, a serial does not. I think GRRM started off writing a saga and then decided it would be better as a serial when the show made it popular. Man, I am still so annoyed with the conclusion of GoTs - some elements just sweated excellent, subversive storytelling. Jamie/Brienne/Cersie was brilliant (in plotting, if not execution) as was Dany's arc. But the Night King and the magic and lore just sucked. For sure, GRRM is a character gardener and a shit world builder. But, in the end, it proved that D&D were just shit at both. I am just so annoyed - such potential wasted. ASoIaF/GoTs could have been LotRs or Star Wars (OT) - which I am sure history will judge as rivals to older classics - it is just so annoying it missed the mark.
  10. Just gotta say - my Dad, poor old man who I rarely connect with - thought Bran would be the final monarch after season 1. Why? Coz Brans journey extended to a realm beyond the other characters - the metaphysical. I don't often connect with my dad but I gotta say, perhaps we overthought this whole fucking thing? Perhaps GRRM always knew that the poor boy pushed to his death, who embraced the other, would be king? NB - not trying to defend D&Ds storytelling - that sucked, Just noting I think there was a good story here and I am pissed at both GRRM for not finishing and D&D fir being literary fuckwits.
  11. Just going to chime in here at the end - posters earlier mentioned duty vs love. I think they get it. That is what this whole saga was about, The human heart in conflict with itself. The masculine vs the feminine. Honor vs emotion. Duty vs love. Pride vs forgiveness and so on. I have been away from the boards, trying to write my own fantasy masterpiece (that I was planning way before ASoIaF/GoTs) but I think the themes touched on above are integral to all heroic fantasy. The human heart has basic conflicts - sexually, politically, emotionally - we need to embrace these and write about them - expose them in their raw honesty, for all to see. Fuck modern diversions like political correctness - get to the heart of real heroic fantasy storytelling - what is it about, what are we trying to say? The arm vs the beauty, the vag vs the cock - they can oppose or combine. I love and hate GoTs - it is the most inspirational fantasy storytelling of the last score of years and it is also the worst. An author too gutless to finish. Show runners too gutless to be honest. A saga that could have been. As the human heart is in conflict with itself, so is GoTs/ASoIaF a mess.
  12. Coz they were trying to simplify a bunch of book concepts that probably didn't lead anywhere either.
  13. No doubt the weaker writing, general detachment and mishaps on set are all correlated. I do, however, think the NK was a bigger character assassination than Dany - actually, I wouldn't use the word assassination on either. But, where as Dany had dot points that D&D botched the story telling for, I do not think they had anything with the NK. I wonder if that is part of why they gave up a bit at the end - knowing all the fans would want more out of the NK and magic in the show than what they had.
  14. Sure, what is there of the books are better. But the show finished... so meh, I'll just be satisfied with what we have - it's not like we are probably going to get anything else. Also, I am not certain that she requires a progression towards darkness. Or that her character even required consistency as it was destabilizing. I do think the writing in the show was very poor but what shone through to me with Dany was a character that ultimately ended up feeling unloved and powerless, then turned to anger and fear when her idealism and entitlement came crashing down. Could have been written much better but I thought the dot points were still there.
  15. Yea but Dany was consistently an entitled idealist in both books and show, which was always portrayed as a bad mix. It is dangerous to have a head full of ridiculous, vaguely workable ideals that don't take the real world into account and both the sense of entitlement and power to enact violence (via her dragons) to force those ideals on others - that was the entire point of of her character. She was basically set up as a troll character to something like a champagne warrior mindset, which is a point I discussed with others years ago in the book forums. That was always blatantly obvious to anyone who viewed her without a biased lens. She was a great character for exactly those reasons - because she can make the modern self righteous Westerner look at their own bullshit and re-asses their position. D&D are shit writers. They obviously had the major plot points but were absolutely crap at writing the connective tissue. You can blame them or GRRM for not finishing it in time, take your pick. None of this changes that Dany was a spectacularly important character for our current times - but she would have been so much better if delivered properly, you get no disagreement from me on that.
  16. I thought melting pot was a fairly recent US term that has nothing to do with the longer history of Western culture. The benefits of the West are from a long linage of Western ideals built upon from one civilization to the next. Just as I suspect the benefits of modern Eastern cultures are (though I have never lived them). There is also a difference between multiple ethnic groups integrating into and adapting to the greater traditional ideals of a host culture (which is something I have no issue with and arguably increases the resilience of a civilization) and the idea of multiculturalism (which is a deeply flawed, regressive, culture breaking concept). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Forgetting that simple idea was a big part of why Rome fell - and yes I know the phrase was coined after that fall but the message is the same.
  17. Which is exactly what globalism and 'multiculturalism' is trying to do to the West - change the method of production by either offshoring labor or importing cheaper labor, though I digress - Dany did try to change the base level of production in Essos by freeing slaves, she is kind of a medieval Marxist. I don't think it is a mistake that GRRM showed this and showed that to destroy slavery, she also had to destroy tradition. Yea, two of the characters I was most behind
  18. You realise that without the traditional values that the West grew out of, you would not have the freedom to embrace an ideal like multiculturalism. You also realise multiculturalism is an oxymoron - cultures are always singular. I think you don't like GoTs because it used the character of Dany to make a point contrary to your views. The forced destruction of traditional values is unstable - and as Jon said, what if other people have a different idea (paraphrasing). Dany's only answer was they don't get to choose - which strangely enough reminds me of these ideas of censoring hate speech and what have you on the interwebs. We, the progressive idealists know what is best and everyone else must bend the knee! I think Dany's character is cutting close to the bone for some (even in D&Ds retarded telling of the tale). I think she was always deliberately designed that way.
  19. What about the scenario in which he manipulated events to put himself there? Because he said basically nothing all season it made his character so ambiguous he could have been up to anything hanging out in his chair.
  20. Arya in the show is the next most nonsensical character after the Nights King - getting command of a Stark boat with a bunch of dudes who probably thought the sun shined out of her little pointy dagger didn't seem an impossible resolution considering much of her tale.
  21. If part of the message of the narrative was that breaking the wheel/extreme change is dangerous and de-stabilizing - an ending with no link to the beginning traditions would be nonsensical. Danys entitlement and idealism led her to a place where all tradition must be destroyed for her brave new world to take place. That Westeros experienced minor change after she was slain was fitting. I think this is very pertinent message in today's world where such rapid and forced change is de-stabilizing social cohesion.
  22. Yea, I thought that too - obviously they were lying to try and keep the ghost reunion a secret. They have had a terrible run with leaks.
  23. I agree - and I rated episodes 3 & 4 a 1/10 because their story telling and lack of any king of coherent sense just made them shit. But this episode I gave a 9/10. I had read the Bran thing and was dreading it - but it played far better than I thought it would. This season has been so up and down.
  24. Stole my bloody word. Now I'll have to use: gratifying
×
×
  • Create New...