Jump to content

Rippounet

Members
  • Content count

    2,639
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rippounet

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,595 profile views
  1. Rippounet

    Make Mine Captain Marvel! (SPOILERS)

    The Mother of The Others already answered for me. I do agree "Just a Girl" was unnecessary and kind of cheapened the whole thing though, but I like No doubt so... The sexism barely registered for me because it felt so natural and accurate within the context of the movie. If anything, the movie could have gone a bit further and *still* be accurate. One of the first female test pilotes in the airforce? You bet IRL she would have faced a lot worse than what we see in the movie. It would have been shocking if they had not shown her getting shit from male colleagues. I can't help but think of The General's Daughter, which is a 1999 movie after all. But many scenes from Top Gun (which was hinted at through Goose) are also sexist as hell. Think of how Maverick is talking to Charlie during *her* class. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK1kBEqIKRs
  2. Rippounet

    Make Mine Captain Marvel! (SPOILERS)

    I liked it. Contrary to what the trolls might have said I saw no social justice messaging in the movie beyond having a female as main character (and quite a few as strong supporting characters). It was a pretty standard Marvel movie with nice visuals, a good dose of humor, decent acting, a bit of 90s nostalgia, and a minor plot twist.
  3. Rippounet

    International thread 2

    Probably the weather/climate. Yet, it should be said that the French Parliament just voted the "Pact Law" (Loi Pacte) privatizing the Paris Airports (and the FDJ, the French Lotery) despite heavy criticism and no apparent reason to do so, save for an ideological belief in the inherent goodness of privatization. And such privatizations are hated by many on *both* the French right and left. Also, it should be said that encouraging the use of police violence in previous demonstrations (which was denounced by several international organizations like Amnesty International or the UN) has led to a radicalization of the movement. Many "yellow vests" who started out as peaceful protesters are now radicals who want to see the neo-liberal government and the oligarchy it represents fall. It's all ideological. The government chose to play hardball to decredibilize the movement, and the protesters are responding in kind. It should also be pointed out that there was a march for the climate last saturday as well. It wasn't violent, but it attracted hundreds of thousands throughout the country (as many as 350,000 apparently). And people in France tend to see political incompetence and the defense of the oligarchy as responsible for climate change... In a nutshell, there's a lot of talk of "convergence" between the two movements. It might seem paradoxical since the yellow vests started as a protest against a "green" tax, but in an old socialist country it really isn't: people want the rich and the powerful to pay and act, rather than put financial pressure on the individual citizen. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this could be the beginning of something far larger, because the government has plans to tackle pensions in 2019 - in a neo-liberal way of course. If the government is foolish enough to actually go through with this, the yellow vest movement will swell to dramatic proportions and become nigh unstoppable. French governments have fallen for less than what Macron is trying to pull off. And let's remember that he only got 24% of votes in the first round of the 2017 presidential election... His legitimacy is fragile, his arrogance breathtaking.
  4. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor

    It's not a myth, but it was a field order by general Sherman, who had the backing of the most radical Republicans at the time (like Sumner and Stevens). Congress as a whole however proved more than reluctant to make this an official policy. The Freedmen's Bureau did take a few steps in that direction, but ultimately politics, the challenges of Reconstruction, and the ardent desire for reconciliation with the South made this impossible. Not to mention, as Zorral said, the sacredness of private property, Johnson, and the many obstacles faced by Grant, There's no denying that land redistribution would have helped the freedmen a great deal, since historian Foner proved that economics was ultimately what kept them in some sort of slavery or the other. OTOH, one has to wonder what could be done in the South after the end of the Civil War, since racism proved so intense well into the 20th century and up to this day. Generally speaking -and I'm still basing this on my reading of Foner and other great experts of the period- the problem was that abolitionists were rather naive as to the economic aspects of abolition. Their basic idea was apparently that abolition would force the South to industrialize and the freedmen would become factory workers ; when the industrialization largely failed to materialize, the freedmen were left to their own devices, with some abolitionists even blaming them for some of their woes. It's interesting stuff because the main lesson that may be drawn from this period is that individual liberty is really dependent on economic liberty. The idea that abolition would magically transform the South proved -again- remarkably naive. In actuality, without any kind of economic power, the freedmen ended up largely depending on their former masters for subsistance, which of course had terrible consequences. And yet, the mistake has been made since then, again and again. A few counter-examples notwithstanding, the idea that individual liberty is paramount and that everything else will spontaneously follow if the individuals are hard-working enough is still very much alive today, especially in the US. It's an unconvenient truth, because what it really means is that liberalism -in its literal sense, i.e. more liberty for individuals- is not enough. In order for individuals to be free, there needs to be a socio-economic structure that *allows* them to be free ; and such socio-economic structures are rarely seen as "liberal." To be clear: land redistribution has generally proved remarkably efficient where it has occurred, but such measures were more often than not implemented by regimes that are *not* described as liberal. So the problem in the end is that while pretty much everyone on both sides of the political spectrum agrees that liberalism is fundamentally desirable, one still needs to think about what must be done to get there, and this is where everyone disagrees.
  5. Rippounet

    US Politics: compromising positions

    It really comes down to what the political/electoral consequences of impeachment would be, regardless of whether impeachment is the right thing to do. Paradoxically a better case for impeachment does not mean impeachment is the best way to remove Trump from office. Because Republicans are scumbags. If Pelosi has come to the conclusion that impeachment won't help defeat Trump I trust her to know what she's doing. It's frustrating of course, but it's totally worth it if that kind of calculation helps get a Democrat elected in 2020.
  6. I'm with you on this one.
  7. Rippounet

    US Politics: compromising positions

    In "news from the other side", Breitbart had this very interesting article about Trump "abandoning "Amerifa First" reforms" by saying the US needs more immigration: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/06/trump-immigration-workers-more/ It's interesting because such an article is as close to criticizing Trump as Breitbart will ever go. But it signals that Trump's base *could* still abandon him if he's not extremely careful. Also interesting -to me- is the fact this kind of article reveals a lot about the ideas -and myths- on the right. We have a particularly nice bit on economics here: It's rare for Breitbart to actually write anything of substance, so this kind of article is precious to better understand Trumpism and try to predict its evolution. Ethno-nationalism is not going away any time soon, but it's still possible that Trumpism flounders in the next few years.
  8. Rippounet

    The Orville Season 2

    This was a very good double episode, albeit slightly predictable. However the predictability is part of the whole "Star Trek homage" thing.
  9. Yeah, I got that. You don't want to openly deny climate change, but at the same time you wish the media didn't talk about its consequences so much. Just as you won't deny climate change, but still think humans are bad at predicting things 25 years into the future... Or that there's absolutely no way to say what will happen to individuals. anyway.. There's a pattern in your interventions, you see? You may think you're being subtle, but you're not.
  10. I'm not sure what "interesting" is supposed to mean here. Not really no, and the odds that most of these records are linked to rising temperatures are so small they barely deserve thinking about. This isn't wrong in itself, it's just misleading again, for anyone who might not know what we're talking about. Because a single look at this: https://i12.servimg.com/u/f12/11/35/07/06/18072611.jpg And your entire line of argumentation crumbles. I seriously can't tell whether you're trolling us at this point. But I'll go on a limb here and say that it seems you don't have a clue what you're talking about, because you never really bothered to check data that might call into question your own personal version of pseudo-scientific denial.
  11. Oh, it's been done all right, at least for all the events that can be linked to warm weather: droughts, heat waves, and forest fires. I'm not sure how honest you're being because it's been widely reported that we're seeing the worst droughts, heat waves, and forest fires ever recorded in human history in a number of places. It's pretty damn easy to find the information, a simple google search even gives me websites entirely dedicated to tracking them. You've got lists, studies, maps... etc. I have no idea how anyone could pretend that it's "not being done." Like, I don't even have TV and I've "heard" of about half-a-dozen extreme *recurring* climactic events that can certainly be attributed to climate change. I *could* of course start providing data, but I don't see why the burden of proof would be on me. Quite honestly it seems to me you've kept yourself in the dark *deliberately* because climate change doesn't fit your own personal worldview. Or maybe those Delingpole articles on Breitbart got to your head, eh?
  12. Seven hells. It's called "climate change" rather than "global warming" for a reason: although we know for a fact that temperatures are rising *globally* we also know that localized changes or events are near impossible to predict. So it's not surprising that there are contradicting predictions as soon as we start going into details. This certainly does not invalidate the theory as a whole, unless you read the wrong stuff or have zero critical distance. Then there's confusion between prediction of future events and interpretation of current events. Some extreme climactic events that we are witnessing are no doubt due to climate change, but it's difficult to know which ones or to what extent global changes are playing a role in them. A single drought, heat wave, flood, polar vortex, or forest fire may not be a consequence of climate change but if such events are truly exceptional and/or start happening on a regular basis, it's a pretty safe bet that they are indeed part of the whole. Sometimes the media gets a bit sensational and may get a few things wrong, Nonetheless, *some* of these extreme events must be linked to climate change anyway so a few mistakes here and there are only to be expected, and again that certainly doesn't say anything about the theory as a whole. Throwing doubt on the theory because of specific changes or events is exactly what deniers do. The fact remains that the temperatures *are* rising, and the discussions about possible mistakes are -quite frankly- silly. Yes, no one knows how climate change is really going to affect us as individuals. Biggity whoop. It's still going to affect us in some way or the other.
  13. This should have been posted here sooner to lighten up the mood... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMSHvgaUWc8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD73a1trdJ0
  14. Rippounet

    International News Thread

    There's no question Maduro is a bad leader at this point. The problem is, there's no guarantee that Guaido will be better for the Venezuelan people. I'm not sure why he should be seen as more legitimate than Maduro himself, and for some reason I'm deeply suspicious of his economic leanings among other things. The fact that the US and the West so readily support him doesn't exactly help in my book.
  15. That's not what happens though. Some people are better at predicting the future to begin with, and it's not exactly impossible to figure out who they are. Oddly enough, I would say that you are wrong to state that the predictions we remember are the correct ones. There are actually quite a few counter-examples. For political reasons, it's often convenient to forget the people who got things right and pretend that it was all a surprise. "Not very useful" is misleading here. It depends what resources one has to begin with. Most people can't use predictions about the future simply because they can't do anything about it, not because they have no idea how it will affect them.
×