Jump to content

Rippounet

Members
  • Content Count

    3,785
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rippounet

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

5,759 profile views
  1. Come on. No one said that. Just a bit of perspective. Given the fandom, if the OT was released today, even in modernized form, it would be torn to pieces. The reason it gets a pass is because it started it all and because (let's be honest) we were kids when we first saw it. I'm the first one to have harsh words for works of fiction after watching them, but after some time one can just let it go. There's really no reason to hate on movies that were released years or decades ago. Otherwise, the OT doesn't get a pass either. It's that simple. With time, I'm more inclined to give even the ST a shot, at least the first two movies. And I love pretty much everything else I've every seen or read in the SW universe.
  2. The point isn't to "try hard to find something." Even as a kid I found a giant worm on an asteroid or anthropophagous teddy bears ridiculous, and believe me, I wasn't trying. The point here being that before going too hard on the criticism of more recent stuff, it's nice to have a bit of perspective and remember that there always were some poorly-written stuff in StarWars, from the very beginning. And when I see some of the hate poured here against decent stuff (not great, but decent) like The Mandalorian, I can't help but think that the people voicing these criticisms have in fact no perspective whatsoever.
  3. Christ, I thought I was the only one losing it on forums. So far, like you, I've been losing my shit online exclusively, and not dramatically just yet. Today Moodle froze in the middle of an online test for the second time in a week. Dozens of panicked students sent me emails about it, and I... just can't anymore. Everything combined... At this point I just want to get so high I can forget my own name. I might try that tonight as a matter of fact. Once I have graded the 118 tests that did actually work of course.
  4. Eh... I'm in the minority but I really liked the exposition Having not read the books, there are things I don't get, or am unsure of, here or there. The exposition clarified several things at once and raised the stakes a bit, giving everything more of an epic twist. Honestly, without the exposition, I'm not sure the fight for the knife would have worked for me.
  5. It's very clear that people who hate on almost everything (the PT, the ST, or The Mandalorian) (hello @Veltigar), but somehow don't see just how many plotholes, unresolved questions, or ridiculous moments the OT had, have some weird-ass rose-tinted glasses at home.
  6. Indeed, "amazing" is an adjective I keep for the shows that truly blew my mind, not for every single show I find good/entertaining.
  7. Not sure anyone said The Mandalorian was "amazing" as a whole. Pretty much everyone has been saying that the writing tends to be underwhelming. Cool images do have some value though, which is presumably why we watch a lot of otherwise mediocre stuff. BTW, since you hate the PT, I'm not sure what "quality writing" you've ever seen in StarWars. I mean, the best plot twists of the OT weren't even really planned in the first movie, so I'm not sure when StarWars was ever well written. If anything, as per StarWars standards, The Mandalorian is quite clearly above average.
  8. Yup. Pure entertainment, but better not think too hard about anything. I think that was the point. In this show it's "rule of cool" before anything else. I'm not saying it's great all the time, but I'd say it's pretty clear from the start. At this point we all know we're seeing someone's StarWars roleplaying campaign, and the DM doesn't care about pulling things out of his ass if it feels cool. They could have aimed for better, but avoided risks. Given how unforgiving the fandom is, I won't blame them.
  9. Dude. Almost every time we have an exchange I mention the history, some articles, studies, or polls, something my ideas are based of. I substantiate. You pretty much never do that. Most of the time, you state your opinions as fact and never bother to prove anything. In this case, the irony is thick. I've lived most of my life (about 2/3rds) in French suburbs. To this day I live in a French suburb with a large Muslim population. I have worked in such a suburb with troubled youths (in a high school). Several of my friends are social workers (at least 3), and I also have a friend who is a primary sschool teacher in what is -on paper at least- one of the worst suburbs of the country. So I have boots on the ground, I know the territory well, I have training as a scholar, and I'm familiar with the studies on the topic. And you, who are living in the US, working in STEM (an engineer I guess), who's probably never even set foot in a French suburb (you lived in Switzerland IIRC), think I am the dogmatic one? Methinks you just inadvertently revealed how your mind works. You have a few simple ideas about the world (academia is biased, leftists are globalists, unchecked immigration is bad... that kind of bull) and you think you can waltz in to offer your simplistic views in just every topic, as if your opinion is somehow just as valid as people who actually know what they're talking about. Take a reality check. You're talking out of your ass. Again. It's good to challenge others a bit to get to the truth, but you need to know when to stop and shut up. For instance: And what is this grand pronouncement based on? How the fuck would you know? And of course, you're wrong. But why would I even bother explaining why? You'd just ignore any invenient evidence, as you always do. FYI, in real life I avoid such conversations, unless I want to make fun of the other person. An American engineer trying to lecture me on what's going on in French suburbs for instance is truly priceles.
  10. Pretty solid episode imho (one of the best of the show so far imho). Will rewatch it later on a bigger screen to enjoy it better.
  11. Well, that was bad. Pretty much everything I dislike in Discovery concentrated in one episode. The world-building is cool though. At this point, I think I keep watching this show for Saru.
  12. Since we mentioned this earlier...
  13. On some level it isn't your fault. The Macron government is in fact using discourses and strategies borrowed from abroad. Except of course, French academia is nothing like its US counterpart. By tradition, French academics are more critical of religion than any of their foreign colleagues. There isn't the equivalent of "racial studies" in France, where "race" is seen as a social construct (pretty much by law) ; the closest thing to that is "post-colonial studies" which cover many topics, most of them outside the borders of Metropolitan/European France. The idea of French academics somehow condoning Islamism is bizarre, if not absurd. Most people I've discussed this with (both inside and outside academia) have chuckled at this idea of "islamo-leftism" because it makes no sense. Before the government started using it, it was exclusively used by the far-right to attack left-wing intellectuals. It's not the first time Macron's government has tried to use American paradigms in France. Macron famously declared that "liberalism is on the left" although in France "libéralisme" refers to economic liberalism and to the neo-classical school of economics specifically. In this case though, it's political genius of the darkest kind. There's no such thing as "islamo-leftism" in French academia, but the accusation is enough to hurt both the left and academia. Two dangerous birds with one stone. 1) France was better at all of these. Neo-liberal attacks on the French welfare state really took off under the Chirac presidency in 1995, 25 years ago. Now, our hospitals and schools are in ruins and everyone is fighting for funding scraps. 2) The bolded is flat out wrong. All studies have demonstrated the very opposite. To be clear, sociological studies have demonstrated that radicalism thrives in situations i) of poverty with ii) little hope of socio-economic mobility and with iii) visible inequality or injustice. And in fact, the explosion of radicalism (and drug trafficking, not to mention prostitution) in French suburbs can directly be traced to right-wing governments putting an end to the funding of specific programs that benefited those suburbs immensely. In fact, even this shit-government was forced to acknowledge the fact to and promised to give some of that funding back... except of course we already know that the promised 100 million euros will be given to "préfets," i.e. the officials in charge of... the police*. Let me translate that for you: over several decades, right-wing governments took away educational programs in the suburbs, waited for radicalism to explode, and are now injecting back that money through increased forces of national police**, the same police that have been implicated in numerous cases of brutality***, to the point that the police and the gangs are now at each other's throats. This is what French academia has been explaining for some time, though I don't think it takes a sociologist to understand that replacing social workers with policement leads to violence. And this is no doubt the academics targetted by accusations of "islamo-leftism." Except of course, no French sociologist worked on those studies to condone islamism but to offer explanations and solutions, precisely because they despise Islamism. *Despite the original report recommending such funding coming from a -somehow decent- right-wing politician who stressed the importance of education rather than repression. **France used to have more "municipal" (local) police who were trained to defuse tensions rather than exacerbate them. ***see: 2017 French riots and their causes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_French_riots Here too you have it backwards. There's an entire wikipedia page showing just how wrong you are: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sondages_d%27opinion_sur_le_mouvement_des_Gilets_jaunes Some key facts here: - Though it declined over time, support for the yellow vests never ever went below the 45% approval rating. - Only at the very end did more people possibly oppose than support the movement, and then only by small margins (53-44 being the largest margin recorded) in a small number of polls. Many still showed high levels of support a year after the movement began. For instance LCI (which is rather right-wing) had it at 55% last year: https://www.lci.fr/social/en-direct-gilets-jaunes-sondage-un-an-apres-en-novembre-2019-55-des-francais-approuvent-le-mouvement-2103673.html - People very clearly did want the movement to end, but that is not the same as being opposed to it. Opposition to the yellow vests was strong... among right-wing voters. OTOH, after a year, it still got a whopping 62-16 in favor among "employees and workers," i.e. the most numerous socio-economic category of the French population. What the French clearly wanted was for the government to answer the demands of the yellow vests. Which it did, to some extent, precisely because at least half of the population continued to support the movement. DMC already addressed this, but I'll underline the fact that, like most of the time, you have no clue what you're talking about.
  14. No, Macron started moving in that direction a while ago. Police brutality started against the yellow vests, remember? And troubling laws were being discussed even when terrorism wasn't on everyone's mind, to target all kinds of activism rather than terrorism. It's a "fun" fact that a few years ago, when they started voting laws to fight "terrorism" here, the very first people they were actually used against were environmental activists living deep in the French countryside, because they *might* have been planning anti-capitalist demonstrations. You just can't make that shit up. This is the most nauseating thing you've ever written, and I've seen you write quite a few through the years. What exactly incites "unrest, division and hatred" in French academia? I very much doubt you would ever be able to come up with an answer, because of course you don't know anything about it. You're only making assumptions and projections based on your own despicable ideas and hasty generalisations. And as usual, if you are pressed on this you will dodge to avoid showing just how ignorant about it you are. Since most academic works in France aren't translated in English (a lasting remnant of foolish Gallic pride) and you work in STEM, I'm quite certain you're talking out of your ass. Academia is just another way of talking about the quest for truth, without which our societies would still be trying to figure out how gravity works. The reason why so many people want to attack it the very opposite of what you say: because for the past decades (centuries?) it has been saying that divisions are absolutely artificial. Religions are bullshit, races and nations are fictions. Academia exposes the fact that humans are one big species with a lot of problems, and that simple truth is making a lot of people very uncomfortable. Many people would rather believe in their fictions, and of course, believe that their fictions are better than those of their neighbors. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that some people want to preserve those fictions to preserve their power. Academia is threatened when governments veer toward authoritarianism, because authoritarians do not want anyone to be able to speak truth to power, nor people to learn that the narratives they are being fed are just that, narratives, stories for the simple-minded and the gullible. When governments target universities, it almost always means that they have a narrative to sell, one that is that very simple and very wrong. The usual: social programs, education, healthcare... Psychiatric care, in this case. This was not a terrorist attack, not the work of any kind of organization, just a deranged individual with bullshit ideas in his head. It's actually quite telling, really, that when people started calling for the death of Paty on the internet, the one person to act was a kid (barely a man) with a history of mental illness. I despise religion, but seeking to replace it with some glorified nationalism is only trading one type of foolishness for another. Those who would seek comfort in such childish ideas are the idiots and the feeble-minded, on whom Macron is now betting to be reelected.
  15. Yesterday's The Atlantic's piece on the situation in France: I cannot stress how deeply I hate Macron and his government. The only reason why Macron was elected in the first place was because a majority did not want the far-right to win. Turns out that in France, the neo-liberals are just as bad. Pretty much everything we would have feared from a far-right government has in fact come to pass. Seriously, we even have an all-out attack on academic freedom! I see no reason to be nuanced. Voting on the right, for a party that was supposed to be center-right even, is giving us fascism, just a tiny bit slower than the actual neo-fascists perhaps, and that's not even certain, given the fact that the actual neo-fascists tend to be less efficient than the neo-liberals. Only the left is providing an alternative. And it's now clear to me that the most radical leftists are the ones who were correct all along.
×
×
  • Create New...