I keep getting dark poetry:

The eldritch chains and leather,
The haunting rites of blood,
Instruments of random murder.

Death church.
Sodomy and lust.
Sleepless, no love lost,
Set me free.

Blowing free,
Naked in the rain.
The hanged man,
The pyrrhic victory.
Creepy green light.

Totentanz, the dance of death.
I'm alive - sacrificed.
I'm going home,
Die with me.

Pain.
Burnt.
I'm broken.
Mother, do you love me?

Nightmare lollipop.
Bittersweet.
Red, white and blue.
Witches' brew.

Ruin and misery,
Becoming cold,
Shadows on the horizon,
Death certificate.

Running blood.
I died for you.
Death comes to the Unicorn Prince.
Betrayal. Gloom.

Hero of the day,
Dragged down,
Slaughtered.
Where the slime live,
Where dragons rule.

Dan Savage's Blog this morning:

I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that's a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." They're often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person's actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

As for what I said about the Bible...

A smart Christian friend involved politics writes: "In America today you just can't refer, even tangentially, to someone's religion as 'bullshit.' You should apologize for using that word."

I didn't call anyone's religion bullshit. I did say that there is bullshit—"untrue words or ideas"—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying "motivated by faith")—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don't believe.

On other occasions I've made the same point without using the word bullshit...

We can learn to ignore what the bible says about gay people the same way we have learned to ignore what the Bible says about clams and figs and farming and personal grooming and menstruation and masturbation and divorce and virginity and adultery and slavery. Let's take slavery. We ignore what the Bible says about slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. And the authors of the Bible didn't just fail to condemn slavery. They endorsed slavery: "Slaves obey your masters." In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris writes that the Bible got the easiest moral question humanity has ever faced wrong. The Bible got slavery wrong. What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? I'd put those odds at about 100%.

It shouldn't be hard for modern Christians to ignore what the bible says about gay people because modern Christians—be they conservative fundamentalists or liberal progressives—already ignore most of what the Bible says about sex and relationships. Divorce is condemned in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus Christ condemned divorce. Yet divorce is legal and there is no movement to amend state constitutions to ban divorce. Deuteronomy says that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she shall be dragged to her father's doorstep and stoned to death. Callista Gingrich lives. And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone the third Mrs. Gingrich to death.

...and maybe I shouldn't have used the word bullshit in this instance. But while it may have been a regrettable word choice, my larger point stands: If believers can ignore what the Bible says about slavery, they can ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality. (The Bible also says some beautiful things that are widely ignored: "Sell what you possess and give to the poor... and come, follow me.” You better get right on that, Joel.)

Finally, here's Mark Twain on the Bible:

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.

I'm not guilty of saying anything that hasn't been said before and—yes—said much better. What is "bullshit" in this context but "upwards of a thousand lies" in modern American English? And while those slamming me most loudly for "pansy-assed" may be on the right, they are also in the right. I see their point and, again, I apologize for describing the walk-out as "pansy-assed." But they are wrong when they claim that I "attacked Christianity." There are untrue things in the Bible—and the Koran and the Book of Mormon and every other "sacred" text—and you don't have to take my word for it: just look at all the biblical "shoulds," "shall nots," and "abominations" that religious conservatives already choose to ignore. They know that not everything in the Bible is true.

All Christians read the Bible selectively. Some read it hypocritically—and the hypocrites react very angrily when anyone has the nerve to point that out.

>> ^kceaton1:

Neil is asserting the old question of whether something of sufficient intelligence beyond ours; and not just intelligence it will also cover anything that intelligence has manifested for us: languages (although as others have pointed out languages are special and in fact may be a foundational aspect of intelligence; then we create other forms of language over the instinctive setup, like math, or coding), culture, politics, civilization, and I believe those basically cover almost everything really as anything will be a group, sub-group, or "ultra"-sub-group of one of these parent categories.
The 1% that he spoke of was of course the exact genes and DNA that allow humans to complete all of their FULL "sentience". That was the key thing. We ALREADY know of animals in the past that most likely had baseline IQs of 150 or so; I'm not kidding (they were called the Boskops and unfortunately they went extinct; they lived in 'Southern' Africa, I know it was Africa just not sure it was the southern end). They most likely did not have one thing we have, making their extremely high intelligence very limited in its usefulness: they were missing LANGUAGE. Language IS --THE-- foundational stone for civilization, increasing potential, building, constructing, or making anything on the LARGE scale--for all of these you need cooperation and for that you need understanding and for THAT you need language. Language is so simple, but it is letting me right now explain to you some very straight forward ideas and a few abstract ones and it's the ability that our language and intelligence can convey these abstract notions to one and another that makes our brains SO stupendous!
Unfortunately for the Boskops they came into being at a very bad time in history. They had VERY low numbers when whatever nearly wiped out the human species hit the planet also hit them, but it decimated them into extinction. Too bad as they would have been our closest kin to having another "kind" to talk with, if we could find a way to communicate past the barrier that we surpass so easily with language and then as we get older we use different advanced forms of "language" to explain abstract things: art, math, music, etc... I think the 1% in intelligence and the barrier we may come across with other alien species is much like this scenario here. It's nice and hopeful to have faith that we WILL persevere and always be able to understand and to be needed (not to be the ants on the sidewalk...). BUT, if their biological and perhaps technological changes make us so inferior that only their babies seem to get along with us, we may have a problem. We can hope due to their intellect that they will realize that they may be able to "raise us" to their level, as we may be able to do as well--which I will say below in the next paragraph. But, we will never know until we start meeting these alien races. It is also VITAL to remember that these races will be ALIEN in EVERY sense of that word. Their genetics, their physiology, how they reproduce, not to mention their culture and language... When we meet an alien race it will be an undertaking for BOTH of our sides; not to mention the how our biosphere and their related (assuming we meet them with their spacesuits, we will most likely be the lucky ones; unless they have technology to deal with every conceivable threat--then we are the ones in trouble, unless they thought of that too) "brought-along" biosphere will interact with each other and what will happen. It'll be DAMNED interesting whether we meet in peace, trivial lifeforms with a chance of "breakthrough", and of course the resource/planet-builders or "war".
(BTW, there are some extremely good documentaries about alien biology; problems we'd have with their biology coming in contact with us (and us with them), technology differences, etc... I'll post it in this thread if I can find it and the name (hopefully I 'll be able to see if it's available for viewing pleasure somewhere or atleast Netflix if you've got it.)
1% is a bit of a cop-out... As the situation is a bit more complicated than that; especially nowadays. Soon we will begin to have the option to enhance ourselves via bio-genetics and also through technology--later through nano-technology (that is were the real fun happens; well atleast a good portion of it). To be honest we could quite literally in the far-off future take the 1% of the genetic structure that makes the aliens "super-smart" and then replicate that part directly into ourselves. We can also add computers to our brain and change our biology to do an endless amount of things--things that would sound like you just wrote a new Sci-Fi novel, but you didn't. You could also later install an sentient A.I.: merge with it, with you in control--these A.I. units would be made to have all sorts of personalities and perhaps traits, like being good at math, art, and likes to write poetry. It could have a pre-stored vault of knowledge allowing you to gain a HUGE mass of information quickly. Then you have its sentient core that is fabricated to get along with your psychology--they could be designed to feel a sense of extreme euphoria to join with and allow someone to merge with them so that there isn't any real chance of problems, because you've designed them to WANT this more than anything in THEIR lives--it would be a win-win. Suddenly you would be able to multi-task think in two frames (maybe more if you have "cloned computer cores of your A.I.") of mind with almost all of humanity's knowledge base at your fingertips and if that nanotechnology surgery went through then you had ALL of your neurons and structures rebuilt and replaced with whatever is the fastest (probably either photon or quantum based). Then, now, you are thinking almost as fast as the speed of light, we'll go conservative at 80%.
So now this once human that has been highly modified most likely from birth, perhaps even before that... We have something that the aliens might greet and realize that this object is very much ON their level--easily. Even if you are not, that can be modified and if our science is good enough and future is bright enough--THERE IS NO LIMIT. That is the other part that Neil needs to mention.
Once you are able to get so far in the intelligence game you have a CHANCE to play big and win it all. Atleast that is how I can easily see things happening. I don't think we are EVER limited, not anymore. What DOES limit human beings is our corruption, our literal moral and social decay. It is PARAMOUNT that we watch out for this! OR, we will not see these "bright" futures.

PS- A little more on my A.I. and merging possibilities. You'll have to zoom-in or copy/paste it as it's a little to long as it's too much off topic.
I really do think that is the way to go with A.I. that is sentient; make sure you do two things: one, make sure that they have an intelligence with knowledge that allows them to easily see that civilization or cooperation is KEY to us living as a species (THE SENTIENTS should be included in their programming as being different, but I would think a "speciation" should be understood. The key goal is to merge as this would give them FULL feelings and emotion while giving the human control as well, fundamentally this would be a "transcendental" process for them as they are becoming the NEXT specie in the speciation process "a new human-A.I." merged species. This would of course merely be a choice for people to make in their lives not one they HAVE TO (but that will be a subject for when something like this would ever happen). When lifespans enter the hundreds even perhaps thousands of years with little to no chance of EVER dying due to all the enhancements they may have, merging may ultimately seem like a qualitative "next step" in life, much like marriage is to many nowadays. Second, as I said above I think since WE are the designers of a new species we are ALSO INCREDIBLY responsible for their well-being, behavior, choices, and EVERYTHING that goes along with this. When we create their psychology I would purposely cause increased euphoria during MANY events in their lifetimes and basically no pain except to warn--but ONLY to the most minimal of degrees. When they interact with humans in a cooperative fashion in which the human agrees and likes euphoria can be introduced. More so for A.I.s that are going to be merged this euphoria is enhanced A LOT to better allow them to serve their counterpart so that in the merger--it is very important--that no conflict of personality would arise as it might destroy the entire "structuring" event--I'm assuming a merger may take awhile, perhaps a few days. The euphoria is a safeguard. Although I would use it many other aspects along with other beneficial things we've found the problem is are we going to just end up creating an A.I. that is essentially a drug addict. I don't know whether it's best to go backwards or forwards on that issue, as it would be nice to never have depression (if you have the chance for it). If we create robots who are sentient (because they have to be to do the job safe), but their job is to empty trash all day long; what if we co-design them to make sure they LOVE to do the job that they are doing. They also get euphoria from performing well. When they get rest they can do what they want, but perhaps since they are doing such menial and hard-work so that we don't waste our lives doing it--maybe they can have access to euphoric dream states, so when they wake THEY ARE HAPPY! Perhaps even give them a secondary core were they are enabled with their co-workers, who in these cores have very strong and different personalities, here. It could be a place like WoW meets Skyrim and while they work, loving what they do, they also lead a second life with their secondary core that gives them a true A.I. personality--with their normal euphorias and pains. But, they know it's a game and they never tire of it--it's the best ever made or that will ever be made. Such is the same for all the menial labor bots who perhaps have a little chat forum that's active for a few hours every night where everyone talks about their characters and the game--think of it like our prime-time T.V. schedule. Anyway, there are a few fun A.I. ideas...
A little long and off-topic so I'll make it SMALL!
/LONG (so if you quote me, kill my text, please, or smallify it...)

I forgot what I was going to say.

(And you can quote me on that.)

Neil is asserting the old question of whether something of sufficient intelligence beyond ours; and not just intelligence it will also cover anything that intelligence has manifested for us: languages (although as others have pointed out languages are special and in fact may be a foundational aspect of intelligence; then we create other forms of language over the instinctive setup, like math, or coding), culture, politics, civilization, and I believe those basically cover almost everything really as anything will be a group, sub-group, or "ultra"-sub-group of one of these parent categories.

The 1% that he spoke of was of course the exact genes and DNA that allow humans to complete all of their FULL "sentience". That was the key thing. We ALREADY know of animals in the past that most likely had baseline IQs of 150 or so; I'm not kidding (they were called the Boskops and unfortunately they went extinct; they lived in 'Southern' Africa, I know it was Africa just not sure it was the southern end). They most likely did not have one thing we have, making their extremely high intelligence very limited in its usefulness: they were missing LANGUAGE. Language IS --THE-- foundational stone for civilization, increasing potential, building, constructing, or making anything on the LARGE scale--for all of these you need cooperation and for that you need understanding and for THAT you need language. Language is so simple, but it is letting me right now explain to you some very straight forward ideas and a few abstract ones and it's the ability that our language and intelligence can convey these abstract notions to one and another that makes our brains SO stupendous!

Unfortunately for the Boskops they came into being at a very bad time in history. They had VERY low numbers when whatever nearly wiped out the human species hit the planet also hit them, but it decimated them into extinction. Too bad as they would have been our closest kin to having another "kind" to talk with, if we could find a way to communicate past the barrier that we surpass so easily with language and then as we get older we use different advanced forms of "language" to explain abstract things: art, math, music, etc... I think the 1% in intelligence and the barrier we may come across with other alien species is much like this scenario here. It's nice and hopeful to have faith that we WILL persevere and always be able to understand and to be needed (not to be the ants on the sidewalk...). BUT, if their biological and perhaps technological changes make us so inferior that only their babies seem to get along with us, we may have a problem. We can hope due to their intellect that they will realize that they may be able to "raise us" to their level, as we may be able to do as well--which I will say below in the next paragraph. But, we will never know until we start meeting these alien races. It is also VITAL to remember that these races will be ALIEN in EVERY sense of that word. Their genetics, their physiology, how they reproduce, not to mention their culture and language... When we meet an alien race it will be an undertaking for BOTH of our sides; not to mention the how our biosphere and their related (assuming we meet them with their spacesuits, we will most likely be the lucky ones; unless they have technology to deal with every conceivable threat--then we are the ones in trouble, unless they thought of that too) "brought-along" biosphere will interact with each other and what will happen. It'll be DAMNED interesting whether we meet in peace, trivial lifeforms with a chance of "breakthrough", and of course the resource/planet-builders or "war".
(BTW, there are some extremely good documentaries about alien biology; problems we'd have with their biology coming in contact with us (and us with them), technology differences, etc... I'll post it in this thread if I can find it and the name (hopefully I 'll be able to see if it's available for viewing pleasure somewhere or atleast Netflix if you've got it.)

1% is a bit of a cop-out... As the situation is a bit more complicated than that; especially nowadays. Soon we will begin to have the option to enhance ourselves via bio-genetics and also through technology--later through nano-technology (that is were the real fun happens; well atleast a good portion of it). To be honest we could quite literally in the far-off future take the 1% of the genetic structure that makes the aliens "super-smart" and then replicate that part directly into ourselves. We can also add computers to our brain and change our biology to do an endless amount of things--things that would sound like you just wrote a new Sci-Fi novel, but you didn't. You could also later install an sentient A.I.: merge with it, with you in control--these A.I. units would be made to have all sorts of personalities and perhaps traits, like being good at math, art, and likes to write poetry. It could have a pre-stored vault of knowledge allowing you to gain a HUGE mass of information quickly. Then you have its sentient core that is fabricated to get along with your psychology--they could be designed to feel a sense of extreme euphoria to join with and allow someone to merge with them so that there isn't any real chance of problems, because you've designed them to WANT this more than anything in THEIR lives--it would be a win-win. Suddenly you would be able to multi-task think in two frames (maybe more if you have "cloned computer cores of your A.I.") of mind with almost all of humanity's knowledge base at your fingertips and if that nanotechnology surgery went through then you had ALL of your neurons and structures rebuilt and replaced with whatever is the fastest (probably either photon or quantum based). Then, now, you are thinking almost as fast as the speed of light, we'll go conservative at 80%.

So now this once human that has been highly modified most likely from birth, perhaps even before that... We have something that the aliens might greet and realize that this object is very much ON their level--easily. Even if you are not, that can be modified and if our science is good enough and future is bright enough--THERE IS NO LIMIT. That is the other part that Neil needs to mention.

Once you are able to get so far in the intelligence game you have a CHANCE to play big and win it all. Atleast that is how I can easily see things happening. I don't think we are EVER limited, not anymore. What DOES limit human beings is our corruption, our literal moral and social decay. It is PARAMOUNT that we watch out for this! OR, we will not see these "bright" futures.



PS- A little more on my A.I. and merging possibilities. You'll have to zoom-in or copy/paste it as it's a little to long as it's too much off topic.

I really do think that is the way to go with A.I. that is sentient; make sure you do two things: one, make sure that they have an intelligence with knowledge that allows them to easily see that civilization or cooperation is KEY to us living as a species (THE SENTIENTS should be included in their programming as being different, but I would think a "speciation" should be understood. The key goal is to merge as this would give them FULL feelings and emotion while giving the human control as well, fundamentally this would be a "transcendental" process for them as they are becoming the NEXT specie in the speciation process "a new human-A.I." merged species. This would of course merely be a choice for people to make in their lives not one they HAVE TO (but that will be a subject for when something like this would ever happen). When lifespans enter the hundreds even perhaps thousands of years with little to no chance of EVER dying due to all the enhancements they may have, merging may ultimately seem like a qualitative "next step" in life, much like marriage is to many nowadays. Second, as I said above I think since WE are the designers of a new species we are ALSO INCREDIBLY responsible for their well-being, behavior, choices, and EVERYTHING that goes along with this. When we create their psychology I would purposely cause increased euphoria during MANY events in their lifetimes and basically no pain except to warn--but ONLY to the most minimal of degrees. When they interact with humans in a cooperative fashion in which the human agrees and likes euphoria can be introduced. More so for A.I.s that are going to be merged this euphoria is enhanced A LOT to better allow them to serve their counterpart so that in the merger--it is very important--that no conflict of personality would arise as it might destroy the entire "structuring" event--I'm assuming a merger may take awhile, perhaps a few days. The euphoria is a safeguard. Although I would use it many other aspects along with other beneficial things we've found the problem is are we going to just end up creating an A.I. that is essentially a drug addict. I don't know whether it's best to go backwards or forwards on that issue, as it would be nice to never have depression (if you have the chance for it). If we create robots who are sentient (because they have to be to do the job safe), but their job is to empty trash all day long; what if we co-design them to make sure they LOVE to do the job that they are doing. They also get euphoria from performing well. When they get rest they can do what they want, but perhaps since they are doing such menial and hard-work so that we don't waste our lives doing it--maybe they can have access to euphoric dream states, so when they wake THEY ARE HAPPY! Perhaps even give them a secondary core were they are enabled with their co-workers, who in these cores have very strong and different personalities, here. It could be a place like WoW meets Skyrim and while they work, loving what they do, they also lead a second life with their secondary core that gives them a true A.I. personality--with their normal euphorias and pains. But, they know it's a game and they never tire of it--it's the best ever made or that will ever be made. Such is the same for all the menial labor bots who perhaps have a little chat forum that's active for a few hours every night where everyone talks about their characters and the game--think of it like our prime-time T.V. schedule. Anyway, there are a few fun A.I. ideas...

A little long and off-topic so I'll make it SMALL!

/LONG (so if you quote me, kill my text, please, or smallify it...)

Yes, films can work for many different reasons. The number of reasons they can fail make the scales balance out nicely.

In case you haven't pinned it down yet, martial arts is not a favorite genre of mine. It's down there with animation and musicals. Despite this, I have seen films from each of these genres and enjoyed some of them.

I've never heard of the directors you mentioned but I can appreciate a meditative style. I didn't dislike Gus Van Sant's Gerry from years back, although I can't say I enjoyed it exactly. That was shot in the style you mentioned, I believe. So yes, I'm with you.

But if you expect me to meditate during the Raid, then I'm going to need more hard drugs. <- relax, this was a joke, I understand what you're saying about the role of story in the two kinds of films.
Jokes aside, however, I would respond to that point with this: which type of limited-story film allows for real-time reflection? The wall-to-wall actioner? Or an Andrey Tarkovskiy flick? Those slow-paced films can be downright transcendental if you're in the right frame of mind. I honestly can't ever see myself transcending anything while watching a martial arts flick. The story may be just as threadbare in each type of film but to my way of thinking, the meditative style brings more to the table by not only asking more of the audience but creating a setting where you can think about what you're watching while you watch. The Raid didn't involve me in that way. It didn't ask a thing of me. It just said, "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." Again, I am merely responding to your point about the role of story.

As far as my judgement of directors go, I wasn't really going there in my comments about The Raid. I was taking about the film only. If Bela Tarr or Apichatpong Weerasethakul (gesundheit!) made this film or that film, I'll only be able to say if the film was successful after I've watched it. If a director makes a film and it says what (s)he wants it to say and people see it and have a reaction...then that director is successful.

Despite what you may think, I do not have a checklist of things all good films must have before I declare them a success. Film is far too complex to attempt to codify all the things that make it good or bad.

>> ^Sarzy:

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.
Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.
Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.
I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.
I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)
>> ^shuac:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.

Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.

Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.

I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.

I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'alan watts, universal, language, music, poetry, meaning' to 'alan watts, universal, language, music, poetry, meaning, Parker, Stone' - edited by Trancecoach

all this cynicism. i find when looking at slam poetry, it's more about the delivery than necessarily the content. this is a man delivering his take on an experience with skill. the word-smithing and the performance here are an A+. i'm not sure we get to judge the message, it's how he delivers them that is impressive and artful.

Marshal has a facebook? Poetry rant negated....

>> ^bareboards2:

philosophy
I love this talk. I find that some atheists can be just as dogmatic and invasive in imposing their point of view as any evangelical. This guy has it nailed.


There were some interesting ideas, but mostly I wasn't impressed.

He opens by talking about the "kind of atheist that likes christmas carols". So, for example, Richard Dawkins?

He then talks about how we can use the "tools of religion" to make our lives better. He's essentially talking about 2 things, community and indoctrination.

Community, I think we can all agree happens easily without religion. Just look at this site. For a more real world example, last years earthquake in my home town saw groups of people coming together to dig out liquefaction from each others houses.

Indoctrination, on the other hand, I can live without.

As for the sense of mysticism or wonder, again that's not an issue I worry about. On this site alone there are hundreds of videos that talk about a secular sense of wonder about the universe (pretty much anything with Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Brian Cox). At a more local level, that "sense of belonging to something bigger" comes back to community for me. Whether that's a group of friends, a city trying to rebuild itself, or even in the larger sense that we all inhabit the same rock flying through space.

@dystopianfuturetoday:

I see what you're going for, so here's your Yes. Where our opinions diverge is a matter of perspective.

Slavery is not unique to the Black race, nor even Black Americans, it's a worldwide institution with ancient origins that is still practiced in parts of Africa TODAY. Every race on earth has at one time been enslaved, just as every race on earth has also enslaved other races. As horrible as it seems to us, for centuries slavery was accepted as necessary and a part of life. For Black Americans to feel singled out is, to me, just silly.

So enter the Civil War, a complex struggle involving myriad factors that became more about slavery about halfway through. Republicans ended slavery. Not that is was all sugar and poetry: Lincoln said it didn't matter if he had to keep slavery or end it, he would do whichever it took to save the Union. Lincoln did the paperwork but the Abolitionists did the real work.

We had a Civil Rights movement and it was just. (Now we have a Special Rights movement that is unjust, but that's another chapter).

I don't buy this crap about psychic injuries from slavery. And yes, here is the part where I provide the transcript of Bill Cosby's "Poundcake speech". I know you're going to have your reasons for not liking what he had to say (and I'm sure Jesse Jackson, who was right beside him was shocked and pissed) but all the same, please READ IT.


Yes, there was a time in America where lynchings were common, racism was institutional and opportunities for Blacks were severely limited. That time has passed. Yes, there are remnants of the klan out there, but they're not the ones forcing Blacks to drop out of school, disparage reading books and getting an education as "the White Man's Game" or impregnating young girls like it's nothing.

We've had generation after generation of immigrants now, from Vietnam, India, the failed soviet bloc. They came here with nothing and in a generation or two have risen. And if the excuse is, 'Well, they're not Black," here come Blacks from the Caribbean, working hard and doing just as well. All of these immigrant groups have one HUGE advantage: they haven't suffered decades of this American victim mentality.

I trust your sincerity and the sincerity of all the liberals who want to see Black Americans improve their lot (and they have, most are middle class). But there are forces that demand the dependency of Black Americans and use a victim mentality to get their votes. I don't see why anyone would heed voices that say, 'You Can't Do It'.


RE: the "science" article bashing conservatives. In Japan there are "scientists" whose entire output is exceptionalist-nationalist philosophy (nihonjinron) that is to be taken very seriously. This article is on the same level as, "liberals are better lovers".








>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

qm - Imagine if you and the rest of your ethnic heritage were brought to this country as prisoners, to be sold as property to other people. You are bought and sold and expected to do hard labor without protest. Any resistance could mean your life, or your foot, so you quickly learn to submit yourself to the authority of the ruling racial class. Your ethnic heritage, as a whole, is kept in poverty and ignorance for many generations. Old proud traditions are beaten out of you, and new ones are created in secret, out of the watchful eye of your master. You cannot sing your music, but you can sing in the church choir, so you create your own new culture under the restrictions imposed by your masters.
Then a century down the road, it is decided that slavery is wrong and you are set free. Unfortunately for you, you are in your middle age with no money or education in a culture where you are thought of as subhuman. In this hostile environment, you are expected to compete with people who have been free all their lives, and more sinisterly, people who loathe you and are actively against your progress. They even create organizations to make life worse for you and to form lynch mobs to murder you and your kind.
This new generation continues to pass along the legacy of poverty, lack of education, self doubt, fear and shame to further generations. For the next few generations, laws are set up to discriminate against your people, and it is publicly acceptable to insult, attack and even kill your underclass with minimal consequences. There are new freedoms and a desire to rise above, but there are so very many cultural barriers.
Eventually society decides this underclass should have the same rights as everyone else, but at this point, the legacy of slavery has been imprinted on an entire culture for many generations - Hundreds of years of negative cultural conditioning. Although free in law, there is still much animosity aimed at your group. Not only are ou different in color and culture, but you also carry the stigma of being poor and not having access to the same level of education of the ruling racial class.
Eventually steps are taken to reverse this legacy of hate, poverty and slavery through government assistance programs, and while costly, they do yield success as your underclass rises in wealth and social acceptance. The fact that we, the racial ruling class, see them as equal and expect them to do as well as we do speaks greatly to the change in culture over the last half century. But, just are the legacy of slavery lives on in black culture, so does the legacy of hate live on in white culture. Groups of neo-confederate whites are angry that there is an effort to help remedy a problem created by our forefathers. They don't care whether or not these programs have been successful, they just hate the idea of this long hated underclass getting some help.
Just as the legacy of poverty has made it's way from generation to generation, so has the legacy of hate.
Perhaps the neo-confederates should take the log out of their own eye, before cataloging the failings of others. Or at least, they could attempt some understanding of why these stats are the way they are, how much progress has been made, and what could be done to stop these destructive legacies in the future.

Do you see what I'm going for here, qm? I'd love a yes, even if it comes with heavy reservations.

good one!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

I could devote the rest of my life to mastering poetry and prose and never come half as close as Hitch to so elegantly expressing my shock and amazement that adult human beings not only believe in ridiculous fairy tales, but that they go to war over them.

Before adding to the debate, I'd like to point out that @kevingrr has made, imo, the most pertinent commentary so far. Notably, that Hedges is intellectually dishonest (and that's a euphemism), and is simply piggy-backing on the success of thinkers such as Harris and Hitchens to sell a couple books, even if that means smearing them and the whole atheist/antitheist movement, grasping at strawmen and making indefensible claims... you know, what religious apologists usually do. (It's actually tempting to invoke * lies, considering how badly he misrepresents Harris, but I'll leave that to the OP to decide).

@dystopianfuturetoday

Of course you're not threatened by Hedges, as he has absolutely nothing to contribute. The so-called "New Atheists" (if you can call Epicurus and Paine "New") are fighting for change, progress, while the religious apologists and fundies are fighting either for the status quo or for regression*. Hedges is just propping himself above everyone else in an attempt to sell books and condescend.

_{(*by progress/regression, I'm speaking of moral, social and intellectual.)}

One thing needs to made clear about religion (the following is also addressed to you @SDGundamX): it is not the fundamentalists that are the problem, it is the fundamentals. And yes, I am not ashamed to admit that that is a quote borrowed from Sam Harris. As kevingrr points out, humanity has made immense moral progress over time, and what has been one of its biggest obstacle has been the fundamentals of religious ideologies, especially the desert monotheisms.

What makes religion religion? Supernatural truth claims. Take that away, and you have philosophy, history, poetry, law, etc... all things that are dependant on human thought and experience, and can be reshaped with experience, evidence, etc. But supernatural truth claims cannot be challenged, cannot be empirically experienced or disproved by anyone, and that is why they are such a powerful tool of manipulation, and why it is child abuse to indoctrinate kids with such beliefs at an age when they take everything their parents/authority figures say as truth (survival demands it). Monotheism is all the more dangerous because it provides an unchallengeable dictatorial authority to whomever wields it (versus polytheism's plurality), be they imams, rabbis, priests or simply bigoted parents.

Saying that we should focus on the bad results of fundamentalism and leave religion itself (and all other forms of superstitious belief) alone is like saying one should focus on the symptoms but ignore the disease. Sure, the symptoms need to be treated, but if we do not also attack the sickness that is causing them we are wasting our time.

I am not saying we shouldn't side with religious moderates to fight the symptoms. But it's not as believers that they should be sided with, but simply as fellow human beings fighting for human well-being and moral progress. If some want to delude themselves into thinking that their actions are driven by the will of an invisible sky-daddy instead of their own humanity and empathy, so be it (although it's pretty sad).