porphyrian's Journal - Archives
That movie was great, but then I have an affinity for cyberpunk and graphic novels. Anyway, these may lack the dystopian socio-political commentary (...or maybe not...), but I was inspired by the way the entire movie was animated in black and white.
If you don't hate my weird abstract work, there's more of it here:
...afraid that their opinion might be wrong or too uneducated, or simply not wanting to admit that they really hadn't thought that much about it. And, sadly, there are art-world elitists out there perpetuating the stereotype that makes laymen uncomfortable discussing art. This may be why, when I came across your thread, anyway, no one else has/had responded yet. However, I have no problem with discussing things I know very little about (nor with looking stupid), so I'll bite.
First, I believe art is defined more by the audience and the context than by the artist's intent. Thus, there can be no "wrong" interpretation of art, only a dishonest one. Sometimes I make statements that assume you already know this.
I have not seen Renaissance, but now I want to.
I really like Linklater's style, and the technique is called "rotoscoping" (or "Rotoscoping," I'm not sure).
And I think you may be on to something - there definitely are emergent themes to work done under totalitarian, and specifically fascist, regimes. One thing about recurring themes is that their associative definition is cumulative. In other words, each successive incidence of a theme references the previous incidences of that theme, adding their meaning and reference to their own. Does that make sense? I think I just did questionable things with pronouns.
It is my experience that there are certain trends here, one of which is the following:
- "newsworthy" event occurs
- people post for/against someone or some group involved in the "newsworthy" event
- other people post about how horrible the first group of posters are for their position/opinion
- still other people post that there is too much __-bashing going on and that we should all stop it
This is a general pattern which varies to some degree depending on the topic/lunar cycle/available intoxicants, but it does exist in pretty much this form.
The question is, of all the groups that get bashed here, who do you believe gets bashed the most?
I'm fascinated by strange things that happen to people and the way they interpret those things, which is often colored by their religious/supernatural beliefs (or lack thereof). So, if you don't mind, please indulge me with your favorite story, preferably that you experienced personally (we've heard the friend of a friend ones already). Or make one up if you have/want to, it's not like I'll know. Anyway, to be fair, I'll begin with one of my own.
Nearly twenty years ago, a bunch of my friends and I rented a house together in what is often referred to as the "student ghetto" near FSU campus - a former lower-middle income suburb close to campus that has now become almost entirely rental property, much of which is poorly maintained and overpriced. Our first morning there, to give you an idea, a cop came to our door to ask whether we knew anything about a body found earlier one house away on the corner. That really has nothing to do with my story, though, just an illustration of how sketchy the neighborhood was. I lived there for two or three years, and my friends continued to live there for another year or two after I moved out without any serious problems (the house was only broken into once with almost nothing taken, probably kids) and with a whole lot of parties, some nearly legendary. It was a total shithole, apparently built by someone who was reading (or ignoring) the manual as they went, infested with roaches and spiders that couldn't eat them all, but there was really nothing about it that anyone would consider "haunted" or even scary (except for the vermin, maybe, though we finally broke down and got an exterminator in my last year there).
Anyway, early one night, I was on the phone in the kitchen with a friend of mine, I think making plans for either that night or the coming weekend, and all of my roommates were either asleep or out of the house. Then, out of nowhere, one of the cabinet doors, all which were cheap, wood and poorly-hung, began rapidly banging shut for no apparent reason. It did this for nearly twenty seconds, long enough for me to walk over to it, whereupon I put my hand on it and said "stop," which it immediately did. Then I had to explain what happened to my friend, who didn't know what in the hell I was talking about, and pretty much shrugged off my story in favor of concluding our plans and the call. Afterwards, I examined the cabinet and the door, which was so badly adjusted that the bottom corner was jammed in place when closed and the top corner bent outward with some tension - it was this corner that was banging. I proceeded to pound, slap and shake everything in the kitchen in an attempt to reproduce the phenomenon, but only pushing the protruding corner of the cabinet door rapidly even came close. I'm not sure what made me more uneasy later, that this happened, or how calmly I dealt with the situation at the time (because it really freaked me out later). In the rest of my time in that house, nothing else like that happened, nor has anything like it happened to or around me since, and I still have no idea what it was.
All of these were taken on my trusty little Olympus Camedia D-535 Zoom 3.2 Megapixel digital camera and tweaked in Photoshop.
These first two are from a cypress swamp on the property of the Tallahassee Museum (http://www.tallahasseemuseum.org /).
These next two I took around Hyde Park in Chicago about two years ago, near the University of Chicago.
And this is my niece last weekend near the St. Marks lighthouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Marks_Lig... ).
People, and what they consider important, are not static. They are dynamic, in a constant state of flux. That isn't to say that people don't gravitate towards certain beliefs most of the time, we do. However, the priority of each indicator used to identify someone as a lefty or centrist (or right-wing fuckhead) varies from individual to individual based on their personal experience, which is temporal and constantly changing.
For example, a person may believe that killing another person is generally wrong, that there should be no death penalty and that we should have gun control to the point where almost no one has them - a generic leftist position. Later in their life, their spouse is murdered by a remorseless thug with a long rap sheet. At this point, they feel the death penalty is justified, not only for revenge, but for the safety of all of the thug's potential future victims. Also, because of the anxiety created by the event, the person not only reverses their position on gun control, but they go out and purchase a handgun. Now, that person appears to be a rightist, based on those positions. But what if they also believe in universal health care, ending corporate welfare and increasing regulation and a comprehensive plan to nationalize illegal immigrants? Are they now a centrist? And how does what the person perceives themself to be factor in?
The problem is with the terminology and how these terms are defined. If "left" is strictly defined by a set of positions and "right" is strictly defined by another opposing set, then everyone else is "centrist," which would literally be almost everyone, since very few people rigidly fit any one category for any length of time. But, if we're mostly centrists, then why isn't there a centrist party? Are we being forcibly polarized into a false political binary? Or is it that we simply need a better definition of centrism than "not strictly left or right?"
If you won't leave your chair, does it really matter if your chair is in a cage or not?
Fear is one of the reasons people don't exercise their freedoms. In fact, it is the most common tool by which freedoms are "taken," as freedoms are never really taken from you, rather you are convinced not to exercise them through the promise of undesirable consequences. Take, for example, murder. We are all free to murder, some people do. Most of us don't, though, not because it's against the law, but because of the consequences of committing murder, which include the likelihood of punishment for breaking the law, and are pretty scary to most people. People can use this fear to manipulate us into not exercising certain freedoms, and, in the case of murder, that may not be such a bad thing. But the important thing to note here is that the barrier between us and freedom is very often no more real than the lines on a map. We acknowledge them, internalize them, accept them and make them real.
People who have nothing left to lose are given a perspective most people don't enjoy - freedom from the fear of loss. Most of the consequences of exercising certain freedoms are rendered moot; who cares if you're thrown in jail if you're homeless, hungry and raped every day on the street? By comparison, jail might even seem like a good idea. Why not go on a cross country road trip if your wife leaves you, takes the house and the kids and you get fired from your job? How many people aren't doing what they want with most of their life because they're afraid to lose what they have? Most, probably.
Want to fight for freedom? Exercise it. Now. Stop waiting until it's safe. We may never get there.
They chose Senator Clinton as our nominee for us years ago, which means they either know they can beat her or that she'll do what they want. Turn off the propaganda and let's have a primary before letting our enemies decide who we'll run for President.
Will cannot be anything but free unless the individual believes differently. However, since the beginning of recorded history, humans have tricked other humans into believing and following things and people that attempt to control or crush that will for their own gain. These systems of control, which often limit active freedoms through restrictions, peer pressure and punishment, tend to convince people that their will is also restricted. But our will is the one thing that can be totally free if we allow it, and despite what some would have us believe, that is a good thing. We can think and believe anything we want. It is only when we act on those thoughts and beliefs that we threaten someone else's system of control and risk punishment, and that is sometimes a risk worth taking.
I've said this a number of times before in response to concerned (and/or melodramatic) posts in reaction to the infighting on DU, some of which were trendy "goodbye" threads. We aren't a collective of group-think sycophants. We aren't an exclusive clique of radicals who get to define "Democrat" and "progressive" for everyone. What we are is something more akin to a large extended family that gets together for the holidays. Sometimes we get along, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we bring new people in, sometimes we storm out. Sometimes someone gets wasted and makes an ass out of themselves. In the end, like it or not, we're a family, and we have far more in common than we have differences. And, to quote Ben Franklin, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
I'm going to sneak out back and burn one. Someone let me know if Aunt Edna starts throwing the mashed potatoes at people again.
Which part of the Pledge of Allegiance is most important, and why do you think so?
That isn't counting anything that isn't listed, or any kind of temple or mosque.
Tallahassee has an area of roughly 98 square miles and, as of 2004, the entire Tallahassee metropolitan area had an estimated population of 255,500.
Every other strip mall has some kind of fly-by-night church set up in it, and you are more likely to be able to walk to a church from anywhere in town than you are to shopping.
There are 711 restaurants listed in the Tallahassee area.
There are 648 listings for "school," which includes things like Real Estate Schools and Massage Schools.
In a democracy, you can say whatever you want, but you have to be able to support your claims, to answer to the rest of those involved and to explain your motives on occasion. You don't get to pick and choose which parts apply to you. Tough shit.
My "inquisition" isn't some organized conspiracy (and it isn't likely "holy," either), I simply asked you to explain yourself. You're the one acting like a drama queen about it.
If you think I sound like a "McCarthy-ite," you haven't listened to them.
For nearly seven years now, no one's significantly opposed this administration at all. They've lied to our faces, started an illegal war, destroyed our international relations, increased the threat of terrorism, turned a multi-trillion dollar surplus into an even greater deficit while padding their cronys' pockets, abused the power of the executive branch, pissed on the Constitution and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans (and even more of foreign nationalities) either through intent or incompetence. NO ONE IN THE EXISTENCE OF AMERICA is more worthy of impeachment than the members of this administration. What don't you get about it?
My goddamn query still stands. In light of the fact that your comparison of Clinton's impeachment to the impeachment of cheney is comparing apples to oranges, why are you treating them as if they aren't radically different? Did you just decide you'd be against impeachment and now you're being stubborn or something? Some people are on a payroll to push that line, you know. If you're not, why help them?
At this point, even the most drastic action (which impeachment certainly isn't) isn't "bullying forward," it's fucking overdue.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Impeachment is the only cure for the Supreme Court
Did "NoElephants" pass away??
A Giant Union Is Planning to Protest the Oscars
Happy Valentines Day, old friends!
NEVER trust government. nt
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Today's Featured Forums