Flirting = 90% eye contact + 10% jokes

Yeah he was one of the orbiting intellectuals I don’t actually think he abused any kids. I heard on a podcast he got “kicked off the island” at some point even for pushing back on Epstein’s eugenicism. But people clearly knew what Epstein was, esp after his conviction. I’m sure for Pinker it was all just part of the job of being a public intellectual and representative of his university, who Epstein was a large contributor.

But this is the guy who has written books about how the world is the best that it has ever been, as a way to cover for the few who get rich off of the suffering of the masses. He’s a middle intellectual who circumstances brought in close proximity to supreme evil, but never pulled his head out of hid own ass to notice

Known Epstein associate Stephen Pinker

DSA Liberation Caucus is good.

Lol well said. I’m not convinced that he is just a bad story teller, and wrt ST being just another dumb action movie to Americans, nothing more, I think this is where your argument is too sweeping, because without Verhoeven there is no deeper meaning. The ST sequels were all just dumb action movies and none landed with audiences at all. Og ST resonated with Euro audiences, and the sequels were disliked by all. Imo for your argument to have real teeth, you’d see some popularity of ST sequels among USamerican audiences which supposedly can’t tell the difference.

And Showgirls was beyond heavy handed. “We are critiquing decadence by giving you more of it” is a very mid- 90s take. To undercut my own argument a bit, while I don’t believe at all that an artist has a responsibility to communicate a fully realized and internally consistent worldview, I think that the female form is an extremely loaded subject for artists and has been for 1000 years and more. Disregarding that gives a black eye to any work of art, even if the object of criticism is the desecration of the artful female form. I think its fair to say that Verhoeven might want to have a cake and eat one. Esp with Showgirls. I think ST is unique in that Verhoeven’s perspective on fascism is actually unique. It doesn’t matter what people think because it is his experience and his movie. With Showgirls, he isnt a woman and he never had to make it in Hollywood as a woman. And to an outsider maybe all you see is sleaze, and dehumanization. But pointing out sleaze and dehumanization in the negative while creating a sleazy dehumanizing work, exposes a deep cynicism that warps the point. I think you make a good point here, by the end of the move everyone is just completely vapid and meaningless, products of a machine that turns out vapid meaningless art to which there is little real alternative. You either get everything you want and it ruins you, or you get nothing or lose everything and youre still ruined. There’s no humanity in it at all, and it takes some problematic liberties to make a point, that is perhaps a worse point than could have been made. I think you are definitely correct that overdoing it to make a point only gets you so far. And I think its fair to say Showgirls is a particularly egregious example.

I like the movie, I get what he is trying to do, and I think he accomplishes it. But there are things that are objectively wrong about it, even in the context of its deeper meaning, and the route it goes to tell a story. It relies on artistic license to get away with it, but ignores all of the conventions of artistry because there is supposedly no artistry in the subject so why depict it? So in that way I can agree with you about Verhoeven’s storytelling

They committed one of the classic blunders!

I like your post, but it reads more like you don’t get/don’t like Verhoeven, than it sounds like youre describing an objective problem with his narratives. Showgirls is one of his best movies, all the things you describe about it in the negative, is where Verhoeven’s commentary actually lives. It isnt the artists job to only show people the art they understand.

In a thread about what is the deeper meaning that people miss, criticizing Verhoeven on this basis stands out because without Verhoeven, Robo Cop Starship Troopers, Basic Instinct all get made, and they suck. Theres no deeper meaning to them at all. Nobody else could have told ST story quite that way. Verhoeven read the satire into the scripts, and was telling stories nobody else was even capable of telling in Hollywood. ST didn’t work with American audiences, because Americans fall for fascism, thats the point. the same guy who wrote/conceived RoboCop and ST 1 also wrote the garbage ST sequels. Verhoeven read his own experiences living under Nazis into ST using satire.

Criticizing Showgirls because it doesn’t follow a formula for satire doesn’t quite land because Showgirls is a metacritique of formulas. “Las Vegas doesn’t work like that” because the movie is about Hollywood. It was critically panned because it showed a mirror to the industry. By creating a glamorous Hollywood musical in the tradition of An American in Paris, My Fair Lady, and Singing’ in the Rain (itself a meta-satire, albeit a warmhearted one); but taking on the form of Skin-emax movie, bad sex scenes included, Verhoeven’s message was clear. But no one who makes these movies wanted that message to be received by audiences.

Ah, I see you’re still doing the bit, I’ll leave you to it. thanks for humoring me writing about one of my favorite subjects!

Seriously. Theres no way that television even just weighs barely half as much as people seem to say it almost doesnt. The only way is if you weigh 2 televisions, double it, halve it, double it again, and then divide it into fourths. Even then it wouldnt barely weigh nearly what most people think it almost weighs

From this article

Paulo Freire, Brazilian philosopher and educator, proposed an educational method for adults based on what he called “the problem posing method.” This method was based on dialogue that he deemed necessary for education and was not oppressive and controlling. Freire argued that traditional educational methods were inherently oppressive because they served the interest of the elite, instituted what he called “the banking method” in hopes to turn people into better workers. In contrast to this, Freire advocated for an education that was liberating and required dialogue. Dialogue, however, could only take place with profound love.

“Profound love” is an interesting phrase to find in any materialist method, especially with what we imagine or maybe have experienced regarding education. Our society has trouble accounting for it because of how we determine what counts as material or objective fact (this is our ontology). Love, to the rational materialist, appears as chemicals induced to stimulate biological processes. The body is a machine that produces love-like social behaviors, love is just a bunch of chemicals, and so on.

Friere’s method treats love as a subject/object relation, in both the subjective inner working of the individual (I love someone), the way the individual’s actions reflect their inner experience (I love someone, so I act like I love them), and how that practical activity changes the outside world (I experience love from loving someone). He uses a process of positive and negative statements to concretely define love, like “loving is a desire to liberate an other, not a desire to enslave them.” And at the end of his process, establishes “love” as an objectively revolutionary subject.

He writes about Che Guevara in the notes:

I am more and more convinced that true revolutionaries must perceive the revolution, because of its creative and liberating nature, as an act of love. For me, the revolution, which is not possible without a theory of revolution—and therefore science—is not irreconcilable with love. On the contrary: the revolution is made by people to achieve their humanization. What, indeed, is the deeper motive which moves individuals to become revolutionaries, but the dehumanization of people? The distortion imposed on the word “love” by the capitalist world cannot prevent the revolution from being essentially loving in character, nor can it prevent the revolutionaries from affirming their love of life. Guevara (while admitting the “risk of seeming ridiculous”) was not afraid to affirm it: “Let me say, with the risk of appearing ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by strong feelings of love. It is impossible to think of an authentic revolutionary without this quality.”

So for him, the teacher/student dialectic is founded in revolutionary science. Educational dialog is liberating, and the act of self-education is the practice of self- liberation. None of these ideas are unfounded in the Marxist tradition, in fact they’re a direct application of Marxist revolutionary theory. After all, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways, the point is to change it.”

And the basis for Friere’s pedagogy, is asking questions and posing problems, through a teacher/student dialectical pedagogy used as a practical means to free ourselves and others. Without it, as Friere once described it, “When education isnt liberating it is the dream of the oppressed to become the oppressor.” This is what makes “winning the debate” a subconscious act of hegemony and subjugation. Even if it isnt our intent to carry out acts like this, the social structure (superstructure) that exists perpetuates itself through these actions.

So in order to educate an other we have to be actively trying to educate ourselves, because educating ourselves is a means to liberate ourselves, but is only possible when we commit ourselves to liberating an other. In doing this, the other also takes on the role of teacher and student, becoming preoccupied with liberation through education of the self and others.

Anyway, as someone who reasons in a similar way as you, I’ve found the book to be very helpful and enlightening. Its kind of a difficult read, but I’m into that I guess

I think youre doing well.

I agree with your logic and points of emphasis. I can’t make any more presumptions based on these few paragraphs.

I think there are times in a discussion where it can veer into many different directions. I’m very practical minded when it comes to criticism and analysis. It is a good discussion. Sorry if I came off lecturey I think I just felt like writing something lol

Ever read Pedagogy of the Oppressed?

That’s not a bad argument but I’ve already depicted you as a virgin tucan and myself as chad ustedcan wearing a hat. This debate is over

You don’t need to pester about it. You’re doing this logic trick to show how epistemic difference between spirituality and materialism have ontological similarity. You are correct BTW, to point out the similarities between money and god, church and capital.

But in demanding “logical consistency” you’ve turned a teaching exercise into a debate. The standard that you set that the person be “logically consistent” is part of the ontology that lumps yours and rarWars comments together. By adopting the post - enlightenment ideal of rational, logical consistency as a means to invalidate your opponent’s position, you are performing an act of hegemony.

Contradiction also has consistent logic to it. The way contradiction appears within the individual subject is mysterious, but it drives a lot of activity, both constructive and destructive.

I think you have a good criticism of rational atheism, but the content of these comments aren’t practical or pedagogical, which I believe harms your argument. I think your perspective is pretty good but you got lost in the bit

“Ad hominem” means “I didn’t do any homework or understand the subject matter, and I felt humiliated when someone responded to me in a clear way that made me realize how obviously wrong I am; and any humility I have to experience as a result of our dialog is an attack on my personal character”

Like you don’t even have to be mean or call names, people legit respond “ad hominem” when your reply is something like “you should consider how your beliefs would hurt people,” since they believe it implies that 1. They are willing or capable to hurt people or allow them to be hurt as long as their individual views aren’t really challenged (probably true, but a harsh truth), or 2. Not considering others is an intellectual lack that is 1:1 a synonym for stupidity, only pointed out by equally cynical opponents in order to harm their argument, and by extension, bring into question their ability to even make convincing and accurate arguments; which is a sign of unintelligence.

Like people don’t even realize all the snap second assumptions we make about others in any social situation. Let alone, one where there is a difference of perspective, experience, politics, or even style.

I don’t wanna be like making up people to get mad at, but ive seen this like twice this week in argument threads, and experienced it directly in every which way. All I know is when someone throws out “ad hominem” I have never seen it used to call out a real fallacy. Sophistry minded debate bros only care about if an argument is perceived as true or not, and so lists of fallacies are nothing but a way to save face, to accuse someone else of being a cheater, when they start to lose the game they decided on playing.

She’s like an IRL berserker. Shes like “I’ll have a panic attack,” never mentioning that her flight response summons the Norse God Loki

Every billionaire pulls up the ladder behind them in their own special and unique way.

I believe that if you defeat a cop in battle then you can take his badge and gun and become the new cop. So its only consistent that if you free yourself while in custody, you are innocent of the crime

You can love somebody and disapprove of their lifestyle. For instance, conservatives love Jesus but disapprove of his sympathy, compassion, mercy, and desire to make the world a radically more loving place

Bloodborne, and then Sekiro

Occam: I will cut you