Dennis Prager: "The left is more troubled by economic inequality than by evil, as humanity has generally understood the term. The leftist divides the world not between good and evil but rich and poor." In that case I guess the Biblical prophets were leftists! I can't believe the bile this man produces. How can a Jew concerned about morality be so insensitive to social injustice?
How can someone so fundamentally misunderstand the point? Concerns about social inequality are concerns about evils lurking in our very social structure.
re: humor. Humor is best when it rings true! Actually what bothers me most is Wong lumps a bunch of stuff together under hero gets the girl. The hero (Wall-E) falling in love with the heroine isn't always the same as him "getting" the girl.
Haha, that’s a great point! I missed that in the middle of a deluge of other really stupid things that he said.
Yes, sometimes men and women fall in love. It’s a thing that happens.
Regarding comedy and truth, yeah, definitely. Jon Stewart is excellent at exposing truth with comedy, for example.
random thought: “correctness” in language is like formality in like fashion. There are varying conventions. You dress up nice to go to work. You dress up really sharp for a wedding or funeral. You relax on the beach, you put on something simple for dinner with friends, you dress schluffy to go to the grocery store on a Saturday night.
Yes, and, moreover, these things change over time!
Once upon a time, there was a person who hated the world so much that they never left home, not even for a minute. Their community was so distraught by this person’s plight that they began sending them books in the mail, books about travel, and love, and hate, and war, and peace, books about the world they so despised.
And, wouldn’t you know it, the person who hated the world was so bored that they read each and every one, and pretty soon, they walked outside, and said hello to someone on the sidewalk.
The end. Read books, you scamp; they’ll make you a better person.
Not sure I get the point of yesterday's Cracked. Seems to be saying sexist men have external locus of control, lack emotional maturity and view all relationships as adversarial?? I get that comedy involves exaggeration but the article seems to lump all men together - sorry folks, we're little better than horny animals! It presents a rather dim view of men.
I am in total agreement with this assessment. In fact, I actually quoted you in a discussion elsewhere to illustrate my criticism.
Can you help me explain why Iroh is so great? I can't find the words to describe why.
I will do my best! By which I mean I will tell you why I love Iroh.
Iroh is… Okay first of all you should know that Zuko’s arc is primarily concerned with redemption. He has to move from the violent, hateful Fire Nation to the new Fire Nation, about life and energy and drive, and he’s the only one that can make the whole country shift with him.
Iroh has already redeemed himself through an excruciating enlightenment, the catalyst of which is his grief for his own son, Lu Ten. In exile, he adopts Zuko as a surrogate son, a chance to do better, and a chance to redeem his own son’s undeserved death in the service of a great evil. He’s not so utilitarian about it, of course; he loves Zuko just as much as Lu Ten.
And Iroh also knows that Zuko is the one chance their nation has at redemption! He says as much toward the finale.
So Iroh’s got all these hopes, all this devotion and love and guidance for Zuko, as a son, and as a savior for their homeland. And the great tragedy is that Iroh is once again stuck watching and waiting, never sure if Zuko will choose the right path until the moment he returns.
It’s beautiful, though, because Iroh bears that pain for Zuko. He knows that he can’t push Zuko, or his adopted son will falter. It’s an ultimate expression of a fundamental pain of parenthood: Letting your child go into the world and hoping you gave them enough to succeed, taught them enough to make their own way.
Note also: Throughout ATLA, entangling Aang and Zuko’s parties, there’s a powerful theme regarding the ability to choose one’s own family and the destiny therein. Iroh chooses Zuko, and Zuko chooses Iroh. Iroh advises Toph on why Aang and co. help her, not because they think her weak, but because they love her, and for no other reason. Toph, in turn, helps Aang and co. come to terms with accepting Zuko into their family.
Do you see what I’m saying? Iroh is such a wonderful character because he shows us, through guidance, trust, and example, that past evil is not insurmountable, that broken homes are not our prisons; that redemption is painful, but real, and that love and choice define us and set us free.
He was okay right up until he started talking as though oppression of women is unchangeable and utterly linked to the fact that men have penises.
Which unfortunately is halfway through the first entry.
It’s hard for me to swallow this as Wong’s work (though it undoubtedly is). There are shades of these ideas in John Dies at the End, very light shades, but even then it’s easy to interpret it as examining cultural ideas of maleness rather than some inherent sexual characteristic. I hope this article is some kind of outlier somehow, that this is not what he actually thinks, that there has been some kind of grand miscommunication.
Drunk on hyperbole? Just needs to be educated about the differences between gender and sex, and the differences between enculturation and individual education and choice? Was just a general cockup that he will wish he could take back?
similarly, someone on the PA forums speculated it could be Ozai
but in a city where the ruling class and the criminal…
Also, does the wearing of a mask necessarily signify that we already know a character? It might just be that we see the masked person before seeing their unmasked self introduced as a different character.
I think it would perhaps be even more interesting if Amon remained masked for the entirety of the show, with no revelation at all.
ryan they’re not angry about the work of fiction or how the writers are portraying it! They’re angry for Korra, like, they’re angry about how unfair it is for her, in the context of the series. it’s an empathetic anger. they’re not criticizing the work, they’re appreciating it! did I get that right?
I guess I’m mostly seeing these two sentences:
IN WHAT WORLD do teachers drop their lives, and their duties, and maybe also their students, just to teach ONE person??
And I mean, it’s still interesting to me, because it reminds me of how school systems today work, where kids basically are stuck in a compound for, what, 12 years?
The former seems to question the believability of the world, and the latter reads, to me, like saying, “I’m still interested despite this portrayal pissing me off,” because why would someone need to clarify that they’re interested in it unless there was reason to think they were dismissing it, based on, say, being angry at the work?
I think those statements and the angry tone kind of coalesced when I read it! Also I was kinda reading from my phone immediately after waking up and rolling over to check the time, so that was probably a factor.
If the post really is just about being angry for Korra, rather than at The Legend of Korra, then yeah, okay, that makes more sense.
One of the things that REALLY bothers me about Korra’s training is how the White Lotus Society essentially isolated her and trapped her in the South Pole, and brought bending masters to train her.
And I’m gonna propose that this is one of the big…
I’m not sure why this essay is so angry???
Like, I get why her isolation is a bad thing for her understanding of the world, but I’m not sure why that observation is being presented like the speaker is so pissed off about it. It’s fiction! And, given ATLA’s track record with self-consciousness, it’s probably safe to assume that these themes are going to be addressed as the series progresses.
In some ways they already have been! See: Korra getting arrested and bailed out because she doesn’t know shit about how the world works; and when she loses the argument with the anti-bending dude in the first episode, because she doesn’t know what she’s talking about or where he’s coming from.
I feel like the writer of this essay is assuming that nothing is going to change about the situation Korra is in, that she’s just going to skate by without having to confront her failings and lack of experience. But the nature of fiction is that it escalates, and, in the crucible of conflict, characters are often transformed. We’ve already seen how she’s impudent and unworldly and the kind of shit it gets her into on her first day in Republic City. Maybe wait for it to play out in the story before getting up in arms about it?
I dunno, is there something I’m missing or mistakenly inserting about where the author is coming from?
Hey you are a smart dude. If someone says that because you use condoms to avoid getting babies, you must HATE babies, what kinda fallacy is that?
Thank you for thinking I am a smart dude!
As for your question, there are two main categories: Formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies typically are strictly illogical inferences, things like “this could happen, therefore it will.” Informal fallacies are those which have more to do with the content of an argument than the structure, such as equivocation, kettle logic, or false dilemma/dichotomy.
The problems with this argument about condoms and hatin’ babies are more to do with faulty assumptions than the logic linking them together. The argument assumes that only people who hate babies want to avoid having babies, and perhaps also that condoms are only used to avoid makin’ babies, both of which are silly. So, this is a case of informal fallacy! Whether an argument is any one specific fallacy, or even multiple fallacies, is usually up for discussion. Generally speaking, it’s easiest to just call an argument fallacious and explain where it breaks down, rather than trying to identify and label each fallacy. There might not even be a common label for it, after all; informal fallacies are a very broad category.
That said, I’ll have a whack at categorizing this one. It might be called a fallacy of composition, in that the argument assumes that all people who avoid babymaking hate babies, whereas that is actually true only of some. You might also maybe call it fallacy of the single cause but that doesn’t work quite right because that’s more about single events with multiple overlapping causes rather than recurring events with multiple, possibly non-overlapping causes. It could be read as cherry picking, since the argument ignores all the people who use condoms and don’t hate babies. It’s interesting that it’s close to being an ad hominem attack, but isn’t quite there: The argument isn’t saying, “You suck, therefore I’m right,” so much as, “I’m right that you suck.”
I’m not so sure that’s a good definition of anger. I’m not really sure emotions can be defined in this clean-cut manner.
i should be more clear about what i was referring to: when i say “anger is…
Well, in that vein, then, I’d say what we can take from sadness is often nothing more than that we perceive a loss or defeat. And from there we can think about whether that’s true, and what it means for our lives if it is. We can turn it into a better understanding of the world and our place in it.
I don’t either, but library-wise the 3DS is stepping up its game significantly. The only thing holding me back from buying one at my soonest financial convenience is the possibility of a hardware refresh a la the DS Lite.