This particular article, which is indeed only one article and also the thing we're talking about, is one in which the author endorses favorably a vision of the world in which Gone with the Wind is something that is consigned to museums. Now, he doesn't actually specify how we get from the world we're in now to that world, and I would say that it's outright delusional to expect everyone everywhere to just stop liking the most popular movie ever to exist, so he must actually be talking about something that we both would likely call a ban -- but in the interest of maximum charitability, let's put that inference aside. Let's call it free market forces at work. Everyone simply decides to stop liking the movie. Fine.
The thing is, regardless of how it's brought about, it's already objectionable enough just for him to desire that world.
Wouldn't this mean that any and all forms of idealism is bad?
Like your dislike of Christianity. Unless you mean to say that, in spite of your dislike of Christianity, you have no problem with people adhering to its PoV and are perfectly willing to accept its existence in the world.
Essentially, one can't do anything but hold an opinion. To act on the opinion in any real form or fashion would probably lead to the very thing you're saying is objectionable.
This particular article, which is indeed only one article and also the thing we're talking about, is one in which the author endorses favorably a vision of the world in which Gone with the Wind is something that is consigned to museums. Now, he doesn't actually specify how we get from the world we're in now to that world, and I would say that it's outright delusional to expect everyone everywhere to just stop liking the most popular movie ever to exist, so he must actually be talking about something that we both would likely call a ban -- but in the interest of maximum charitability, let's put that inference aside. Let's call it free market forces at work. Everyone simply decides to stop liking the movie. Fine.
Do you know what the most popular movie ever to exist was before Gone With the Wind came along? The Birth of a Nation. Somehow, that movie has gone from being the one-time highest grossing film of all time to a film that is no one screens outside of museums or museum-like settings. It's not delusional to think the same would happen again.
Wouldn't this mean that any and all forms of idealism is bad?
Like your dislike of Christianity. Unless you mean to say that, in spite of your dislike of Christianity, you have no problem with people adhering to its PoV and are perfectly willing to accept its existence in the world.
While it has always been my position that Christianity is metaphysically false, it has never been my position that Christianity should be eliminated from the world or consigned to some less visible place (by force or otherwise). It is absolutely not clear to me that the world would be better off with no Christians in it. In fact it's not clear that whatever person in that world is supposed to correspond to me would be a good person. Even though I now know a bunch of fancy moral philosophy that shows all this, I learned not to kill, steal, lie, or cheat as a result of a Christian upbringing and at an age where I would not have been able to understand the fancy moral philosophy. I don't gleefully fantasize about some kind of de-Christianized world.
That being said, we're not talking here about something that's objectively right or wrong in any sense (in the way that e.g. I believe Christianity is objectively metaphysically false) -- we're talking about a subjective judgement concerning whether a movie is good. Whether some people, on the balance, would derive happiness from viewing the film despite it depicting themes that others may find offensive.
This particular article, which is indeed only one article and also the thing we're talking about, is one in which the author endorses favorably a vision of the world in which Gone with the Wind is something that is consigned to museums. Now, he doesn't actually specify how we get from the world we're in now to that world except by way of insinuation, and I would say that it's outright delusional to expect everyone everywhere to just stop liking the most popular movie ever to exist, so he must actually be talking about something that we both would likely call a ban -- but in the interest of maximum charitability, let's put that inference aside. Let's call it free market forces at work. Everyone simply decides to stop liking the movie. Fine.
It's about how -in the writer's opinion- Gone with the Wind is slowly going from #1 to obscenity, and how the author thinks this is a good thing. It's a highly colored perspective of the history of the film and how it's declining in popularity. A trend the writer hopes will continue until the movie is seen as a historical artifact. It's not asking "everyone everywhere to just stop liking" the movie.
At that moment I realized she was right. It was a creepy notion. In fact, it was downright depraved. In my new world, I would have erased someone I loved from existence (or if that's too melodramatic for you, detracted from the richness of the human condition by removing something that (inexplicably) makes a lot of people happy) -- and for what? So I could live in a hugbox where I wouldn't have to be exposed to something that offends me? Upon reflection I find that to be a monstrous moral tradeoff.
Is your current line of discussion equally wrong because you're wishing millions of people to change their minds on the Confederate Flag? Thus you would be forcing people to bend to your will and -in so doing- erase their individuality?
I know I'm known for melodrama, but going from "I wish Taylor Swift didn't make any records" to "I wish I was a brainwashing, time-eradicating tyrant" is too much of a stretch even for me.* I would assume you just wanted the DJ to stop playing music that bothered you, not rewrite reality.
I don't want anything banned and I hope nobody does any banning, so I don't know how I somehow became the person that is being called upon to answer this question.
This isn't addressing my question. You've used the word "ban" quite a bit in this thread. I responded to your statements assuming you meant "Federal ban." You responded by saying that's not the kind of banning you meant. I said "Alright. So what DO you mean when you say "ban?" Who would be doing the "banning?"" Since you're the one using the word, you're the one that has to explain what you mean by using it.
To explain again using direct quotes to paraphrase the conversation in question:
Everyone on this thread seems to think companies should sell what they want, and the Federal Government shouldn't ban flags. Trying to make it seem otherwise is unfair at best.
Show me where I used the words "Federal ban." I didn't and still don't believe there is any immediate danger of the US federal government banning flags or movies. Then again, I didn't believe there was any danger of companies embargoing flags or movies either.
So, if you didn't mean "Federal ban" or "companies embargo" when you said "banning," then what did you mean?
Who "voted with their wallets," exactly? People didn't stop buying Civil War games -- Apple stopped SELLING them, and damn the demand side of the economy altogether.
I assume -valid or otherwise- Apple has some reason to think they'd lose more money keeping them up than taking them down, public outcry being what it is (fickle).
I'm not saying people didn't want to buy the games, I'm saying Apple was worried negative press over a few games would negatively impact overall sales. This is based on the assumption all companies are trying to maximize profit. An oversimplification -perhaps- but one I don't see being invalid in this instance. Why else would Apple do it?
But, regardless of why they did it, they had the right to do it. If you don't like it, vote with your wallet by going somewhere else.
Its position on the list of all time great movies is entirely meritorious, and it is my humble opinion that you would have to be pretty far gone as a human being to come away from watching it longing for a world where it was deliberately made more difficult for others to see it.
I'll make sure to watch it then. I'm not really a fan of old-timey movies, but I've been making a point to see the influential ones, and I guess I better not miss Gone with the Wind. It can't be worse than Citizen Kane or Trumpet of the Will, in any case. Real snoozers those.*** Maybe not younger me, and certainly not Evil Djinn DM me. Make a wish like that in my D&D game and something as you describe would happen. But, I wouldn't call it a "reasonable interpretation" as I did it.
** At least Will had Nazis. They can liven up any movie. As for Kane, little did I realize (until the movie started) the ending had been ruined for me decades earlier by a Ghostbuster episode and then again by an Animaniacs sketch. I don't know why the writers thought a tween would've already seen that movie...
So, Indians can't have our whirlwind symbol, but people get into a tizzy if the government stops endorsing a symbol of a thankfully-defunct racist totalitarian state?
Seriously, all anyone is talking about is removing the Confederate flag from state legislatures and similar government buildings. Not from historical context or from commerce. If Walmart wants to stop selling Confederate memorabilia, good for them. They still have material from a racist who endorses slavery and child marriage for all your indefensible position needs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Speaking of classic movies, I just read an audience review on Rotten Tomatoes for a western that described it as "the most racist film I've ever seen". The film? The Searchers. I actually laughed out loud. He thought it was endorsing Ethan Edwards! Some people just wouldn't recognize a point if it poked them in the eye. I bet he also thinks Macbeth is horrible because murder is bad and wrong.
So, Indians can't have our whirlwind symbol, but people get into a tizzy if the government stops endorsing a symbol of a thankfully-defunct racist totalitarian state?
I mean, the swastika is only taboo in the west. And the versions of the symbol look pretty different when seen in different contexts. Even westerns have to do a double take to make sure they're seeing what they think they're seeing.
So, while American Hindus and Jainists may have some troubles, the fact that they're generally obviously not Nazi supporters helps.
but people get into a tizzy if the government stops endorsing a symbol of a thankfully-defunct racist totalitarian state?
"Totalitarian"?
I'm curious about this word use, too. Has totalitarian just come to mean 'bad'? The Confederacy was a lot of things, but by it's very nature it wasn't totalitarian (that would have been the north at that period of time thanks to marshal law).
So, Indians can't have our whirlwind symbol, but people get into a tizzy if the government stops endorsing a symbol of a thankfully-defunct racist totalitarian state?
"Totalitarian"?
Well, they did secede without a referendum. And their constitution made it clear how few ****s they gave about states' rights, the alleged complaint by Lost Causers. Even before the secession, they ruled Kansas from Missouri, hence Kansas City. So, yes, totalitarian.
What people here don't get is, Walmart isn't obligated to sell Confederate memorabilia. Apple isn't obligated to sell Civil War games. Capitalism does not work that way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
What people here don't get is, Walmart isn't obligated to sell Confederate memorabilia. Apple isn't obligated to sell Civil War games. Capitalism does not work that way.
Actually, people in this thread absolutely do get this, and have been repeating the fact that they get this over and over again.
I have not seen anyone argue that Walmart and Apple are obligated to sell Confederate flags. Instead, I have seen people argue:
(1) It is hypocritical of these businesses to single out the Confederate flag while continuing to sell other symbols with similar ideological baggage.
(2) It would better encourage the free exchange and debate of ideas if our culture were more tolerant of these types of symbols. The fact that companies like Apple and Walmart felt the need to remove this merchandise to avoid a public relations nightmare is indicative of a problematic tendency of our culture to silence ideas that do not align with the majority viewpoint rather than to debate or address these "bad" ideas directly.
Also: hyalapterouslemur invoking capitalism as support for an argument? Politics really does make strange bedfellows.
Well, they did secede without a referendum. And their constitution made it clear how few ****s they gave about states' rights, the alleged complaint by Lost Causers. Even before the secession, they ruled Kansas from Missouri, hence Kansas City. So, yes, totalitarian.
...
"Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible."
So, no. Clearly not totalitarianism. A hint was probably in the term "confederacy."
So, no. Clearly not totalitarianism. A hint was probably in the term "confederacy."
Well, to be fair having confederacy in the name doesn't always mean anything. The Democratic Republic of Congo is anything but. I agree with you otherwise, just wanted to point this out because I was tempted to say the same thing.
Well, they did secede without a referendum. And their constitution made it clear how few ****s they gave about states' rights, the alleged complaint by Lost Causers. Even before the secession, they ruled Kansas from Missouri, hence Kansas City. So, yes, totalitarian.
Well I mean, the US today controls territories without those territories having a vote in congress. Does that make the current US government totalitarian.
You're thinking of tyrannical. Totalitarian has a very specific meaning that the Confederacy just didn't qualify as.
This is a false dichotomy. You can choose not to take a position on issues about which you are uninformed. What value is there in adopting a public consensus viewpoint simply because you didn't have time to form your own opinion?
We're talking about Mein Kampf here. All one needs to know to share the judgement that the book shouldn't be engaged with uncritically is who wrote it and why. The value in adopting expert consensus is so I don't have to do every scientific experiment myself.
Nothing should be "engaged with uncritically." Thinking critically about an idea is the only way to meaningfully engage with it.
But if you blindly "adopt[] expert consensus" about a book then you are, by definition, engaging with the book uncritically. You are refusing to do your own critical thinking and are substituting the judgments of other for your own.
Wouldn't this mean that any and all forms of idealism is bad?
Like your dislike of Christianity. Unless you mean to say that, in spite of your dislike of Christianity, you have no problem with people adhering to its PoV and are perfectly willing to accept its existence in the world.
Essentially, one can't do anything but hold an opinion. To act on the opinion in any real form or fashion would probably lead to the very thing you're saying is objectionable.
Do you know what the most popular movie ever to exist was before Gone With the Wind came along? The Birth of a Nation. Somehow, that movie has gone from being the one-time highest grossing film of all time to a film that is no one screens outside of museums or museum-like settings. It's not delusional to think the same would happen again.
While it has always been my position that Christianity is metaphysically false, it has never been my position that Christianity should be eliminated from the world or consigned to some less visible place (by force or otherwise). It is absolutely not clear to me that the world would be better off with no Christians in it. In fact it's not clear that whatever person in that world is supposed to correspond to me would be a good person. Even though I now know a bunch of fancy moral philosophy that shows all this, I learned not to kill, steal, lie, or cheat as a result of a Christian upbringing and at an age where I would not have been able to understand the fancy moral philosophy. I don't gleefully fantasize about some kind of de-Christianized world.
That being said, we're not talking here about something that's objectively right or wrong in any sense (in the way that e.g. I believe Christianity is objectively metaphysically false) -- we're talking about a subjective judgement concerning whether a movie is good. Whether some people, on the balance, would derive happiness from viewing the film despite it depicting themes that others may find offensive.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Are you sure you linked me the right article? This is the one you linked:
http://nypost.com/2015/06/24/gone-with-the-wind-should-go-the-way-of-the-confederate-flag/
It's about how -in the writer's opinion- Gone with the Wind is slowly going from #1 to obscenity, and how the author thinks this is a good thing. It's a highly colored perspective of the history of the film and how it's declining in popularity. A trend the writer hopes will continue until the movie is seen as a historical artifact. It's not asking "everyone everywhere to just stop liking" the movie.
I assume you're talking about some other article.
Is your current line of discussion equally wrong because you're wishing millions of people to change their minds on the Confederate Flag? Thus you would be forcing people to bend to your will and -in so doing- erase their individuality?
I know I'm known for melodrama, but going from "I wish Taylor Swift didn't make any records" to "I wish I was a brainwashing, time-eradicating tyrant" is too much of a stretch even for me.* I would assume you just wanted the DJ to stop playing music that bothered you, not rewrite reality.
This isn't addressing my question. You've used the word "ban" quite a bit in this thread. I responded to your statements assuming you meant "Federal ban." You responded by saying that's not the kind of banning you meant. I said "Alright. So what DO you mean when you say "ban?" Who would be doing the "banning?"" Since you're the one using the word, you're the one that has to explain what you mean by using it.
To explain again using direct quotes to paraphrase the conversation in question:
and you said:
I assume -valid or otherwise- Apple has some reason to think they'd lose more money keeping them up than taking them down, public outcry being what it is (fickle).
I'm not saying people didn't want to buy the games, I'm saying Apple was worried negative press over a few games would negatively impact overall sales. This is based on the assumption all companies are trying to maximize profit. An oversimplification -perhaps- but one I don't see being invalid in this instance. Why else would Apple do it?
But, regardless of why they did it, they had the right to do it. If you don't like it, vote with your wallet by going somewhere else.
I'll make sure to watch it then. I'm not really a fan of old-timey movies, but I've been making a point to see the influential ones, and I guess I better not miss Gone with the Wind. It can't be worse than Citizen Kane or Trumpet of the Will, in any case. Real snoozers those.**
* Maybe not younger me, and certainly not Evil Djinn DM me. Make a wish like that in my D&D game and something as you describe would happen. But, I wouldn't call it a "reasonable interpretation" as I did it.
** At least Will had Nazis. They can liven up any movie. As for Kane, little did I realize (until the movie started) the ending had been ruined for me decades earlier by a Ghostbuster episode and then again by an Animaniacs sketch. I don't know why the writers thought a tween would've already seen that movie...
Seriously, all anyone is talking about is removing the Confederate flag from state legislatures and similar government buildings. Not from historical context or from commerce. If Walmart wants to stop selling Confederate memorabilia, good for them. They still have material from a racist who endorses slavery and child marriage for all your indefensible position needs.
On phasing:
"Totalitarian"?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I mean, the swastika is only taboo in the west. And the versions of the symbol look pretty different when seen in different contexts. Even westerns have to do a double take to make sure they're seeing what they think they're seeing.
So, while American Hindus and Jainists may have some troubles, the fact that they're generally obviously not Nazi supporters helps.
I'm curious about this word use, too. Has totalitarian just come to mean 'bad'? The Confederacy was a lot of things, but by it's very nature it wasn't totalitarian (that would have been the north at that period of time thanks to marshal law).
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Well, they did secede without a referendum. And their constitution made it clear how few ****s they gave about states' rights, the alleged complaint by Lost Causers. Even before the secession, they ruled Kansas from Missouri, hence Kansas City. So, yes, totalitarian.
What people here don't get is, Walmart isn't obligated to sell Confederate memorabilia. Apple isn't obligated to sell Civil War games. Capitalism does not work that way.
On phasing:
I have not seen anyone argue that Walmart and Apple are obligated to sell Confederate flags. Instead, I have seen people argue:
(1) It is hypocritical of these businesses to single out the Confederate flag while continuing to sell other symbols with similar ideological baggage.
(2) It would better encourage the free exchange and debate of ideas if our culture were more tolerant of these types of symbols. The fact that companies like Apple and Walmart felt the need to remove this merchandise to avoid a public relations nightmare is indicative of a problematic tendency of our culture to silence ideas that do not align with the majority viewpoint rather than to debate or address these "bad" ideas directly.
Also: hyalapterouslemur invoking capitalism as support for an argument? Politics really does make strange bedfellows.
"Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible."
So, no. Clearly not totalitarianism. A hint was probably in the term "confederacy."
Well I mean, the US today controls territories without those territories having a vote in congress. Does that make the current US government totalitarian.
You're thinking of tyrannical. Totalitarian has a very specific meaning that the Confederacy just didn't qualify as.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Nothing should be "engaged with uncritically." Thinking critically about an idea is the only way to meaningfully engage with it.
But if you blindly "adopt[] expert consensus" about a book then you are, by definition, engaging with the book uncritically. You are refusing to do your own critical thinking and are substituting the judgments of other for your own.