^ Please summarize your argument from that rambling post in a sentence and I will respond. I require it of freshmen in an intro class. It's the least I could ask of such a noted scholar.
Why nothing about SPECTRE?
-
^ Please summarize your argument from that rambling post in a sentence and I will respond. I require it of freshmen in an intro class. It's the least I could ask of such a noted scholar.
You're just so dumbed down. It's incredible. The media companies shape people's thoughts on taboo political subjects with an intent to pacify and acclimate them to what is common place.
-
^ Oh, ok. So you're assuming that any mention of 'taboo political subjects' is done uncritically or that people can't read into the criticism if it was present. That's not correct. Good bye.
Dude, you are an idiot.
Smart people do not conflate reality and fiction in this way:
"SPECTRE (or Quantum or whatever) has been the villains behind the curtain in each of the Daniel Craig Bond films. That probably speaks to the desire of producers to make modern-day remakes of early Bond movies, not because "most people aren't capable of handling politics at that level."
Let me explain why you are an idiot.
The way you think is inefficient. There is no mention of SPECTRE in the earlier Bonds. You're taking a metafictional proposition (one that real people, producers, made about the inside of a fiction after the fiction was made, some bulls**t timeline created for PR purposes to satisfy the people at comicon calling out star trek writers and actors for being inconsistent about how logical the fiction is, to ex post facto justify the order of the movies releases with the new actor) and conflate it with a statement about what real object is being represented as fiction (the interpretation one might make of bureaucracy or MI6 or the production company or the advertising in the movie). This is a simple distinction in order to understand how to talk about art and the artist, let alone something we colloquially call...intelligence. The controversial aspect of this, I figured, would be the part where I say the media companies are doing this on purpose, they purposely and knowingly craft misconceptions about reality so that people think unrealistic and pacifying thoughts about issues. I guess that's too complex to even get to with you; that you're being sold a powerful serialized illusion meant to conceal a very real military industrial complex and class of war profiteers who run your government.
You are too ignorant to read into the message let alone the medium. You literally cannot even tell them apart.
Example of taboo political topic: "The ethics of espionage in liberal democracy"
Here you go, you big dumb head, you
Movie = shape people's thoughts on taboo political topic: "The ethics of espionage in liberal democracy" + intent to pacify and acclimate them to what is common place
-
There is plenty of mention of SPECTRE in the earliest Bonds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECTRE
So rant elsehwhere.^ Oh, ok. So you're assuming that any mention of 'taboo political subjects' is done uncritically or that people can't read into the criticism if it was present. That's not correct. Good bye.
Dude, you are an idiot.
Smart people do not conflate reality and fiction in this way:
"SPECTRE (or Quantum or whatever) has been the villains behind the curtain in each of the Daniel Craig Bond films. That probably speaks to the desire of producers to make modern-day remakes of early Bond movies, not because "most people aren't capable of handling politics at that level."
Let me explain why you are an idiot.
The way you think is inefficient. There is no mention of SPECTRE in the earlier Bonds. You're taking a metafictional proposition (one that real people, producers, made about the inside of a fiction after the fiction was made, some bulls**t timeline created for PR purposes to satisfy the people at comicon calling out star trek writers and actors for being inconsistent about how logical the fiction is, to ex post facto justify the order of the movies releases with the new actor) and conflate it with a statement about what real object is being represented as fiction (the interpretation one might make of bureaucracy or MI6 or the production company or the advertising in the movie). This is a simple distinction in order to understand how to talk about art and the artist, let alone something we colloquially call...intelligence. The controversial aspect of this, I figured, would be the part where I say the media companies are doing this on purpose, they purposely and knowingly craft misconceptions about reality so that people think unrealistic and pacifying thoughts about issues. I guess that's too complex to even get to with you; that you're being sold a powerful serialized illusion meant to conceal a very real military industrial complex and class of war profiteers who run your government.
You are too ignorant to read into the message let alone the medium. You literally cannot even tell them apart.
Example of taboo political topic: "The ethics of espionage in liberal democracy"
Here you go, you big dumb head, you
Movie = shape people's thoughts on taboo political topic: "The ethics of espionage in liberal democracy" + intent to pacify and acclimate them to what is common place -
There is plenty of mention of SPECTRE in the earliest Bonds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECTRE
So rant elsehwhere.
^ Oh, ok. So you're assuming that any mention of 'taboo political subjects' is done uncritically or that people can't read into the criticism if it was present. That's not correct. Good bye.
Dude, you are an idiot.
Smart people do not conflate reality and fiction in this way:
"SPECTRE (or Quantum or whatever) has been the villains behind the curtain in each of the Daniel Craig Bond films. That probably speaks to the desire of producers to make modern-day remakes of early Bond movies, not because "most people aren't capable of handling politics at that level."
Let me explain why you are an idiot.
The way you think is inefficient. There is no mention of SPECTRE in the earlier Bonds. You're taking a metafictional proposition (one that real people, producers, made about the inside of a fiction after the fiction was made, some bulls**t timeline created for PR purposes to satisfy the people at comicon calling out star trek writers and actors for being inconsistent about how logical the fiction is, to ex post facto justify the order of the movies releases with the new actor) and conflate it with a statement about what real object is being represented as fiction (the interpretation one might make of bureaucracy or MI6 or the production company or the advertising in the movie). This is a simple distinction in order to understand how to talk about art and the artist, let alone something we colloquially call...intelligence. The controversial aspect of this, I figured, would be the part where I say the media companies are doing this on purpose, they purposely and knowingly craft misconceptions about reality so that people think unrealistic and pacifying thoughts about issues. I guess that's too complex to even get to with you; that you're being sold a powerful serialized illusion meant to conceal a very real military industrial complex and class of war profiteers who run your government.
You are too ignorant to read into the message let alone the medium. You literally cannot even tell them apart.
Example of taboo political topic: "The ethics of espionage in liberal democracy"
Here you go, you big dumb head, you
Movie = shape people's thoughts on taboo political topic: "The ethics of espionage in liberal democracy" + intent to pacify and acclimate them to what is common placeI meant in the Daniel Craig bonds. Read the context, jerk ass.