x-fragmentos (cultural) - pronto

17th September 2015, 13:30
Movies where the "enemy" isn't actually bad.

A movie where the bad guys are not necessarily good, but the good guys are insanely evil is Anastasia. Now figure you have a ten year old daughter and you have to explain her who the Romanovs where and why the film is lying.

Yes, just a kid's movie. That's what it makes it more awful: teaching kids to worship murderous royals.


17th September 2015, 13:18

Originally Posted by Counterculturalist View Post
The professor shows the Lion King and puts forth roughly that same analysis. The class - mostly people in their early 20s - goes ballistic. People are yelling at the professor, telling him he's "reading too much into it." This one guy is standing there repeating "it's a kid's movie! it's a kid's movie" as if that's an argument. What a weird experience.

AAAAHHH! You are making us THINK! That hurts! What do you think, that we are what, college students?! Stop it NOW! Stop the pain!


17th June 2013, 16:52
Political cartoon thread.

17th June 2013, 16:52

Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
Capitalism, the voluntary exchange of goods and services, is not synonymous with corporatism, the favoring of rich tycoons by government bureaucrats, by granting them strict regulations to rule out competition, imposing further restrictions on an industry, patents, and so on, in return for a check from the rich tycoon.

Obama is a corporatist; his campaign, in fact both his and republican campaigns, are funded by Wall Street (e.g Goldman Sachs) in order to further this company's interests by establishing dominance in an industry and protecting their interests.

Capitalism is not the voluntary exchange of goods and services. The name of that is "simple commodity production", and it has long been wiped out by capitalism (or what you would call "corporatism").


Here is a more appropriate forum to discuss whether Glocks and other guns explode or not:


On topic, technology in itself does not a revolution make. 3D printers are awesome, but they won't put an end to capitalism.


27th April 2013, 12:20

Originally Posted by Q View Post
Exactly this. Ammo needs black powder or some other explosive substance. You can't print that.

Black powder is quite obsolete by now, having being replaced by nitrocellulosis (cordite, etc.)

But no, you can't print that either.



19th April 2013, 14:45

The Black Petaltail (PDF) by Martin Lewis.

(there are .mobi and .epub versions here too.)

Science fiction and conworlding. A pretty interesting read. It is not available on paper, though.


23rd February 2013, 19:46
What are your favorite political pictures/images? II

Michelle Bachmann: crazy and fanatic… or fanatic and crazy?



23rd February 2013, 19:41


Jânio Quadros. Rarely a photograph was so fortunate in capturing the convoluted, contradictory essence of personality and politics of a statesman.


23rd January 2013, 15:58
Political cartoon thread.

Originally Posted by Rafiq View Post
The veil, the burqa is unarguably sexist and when chosen is self imposed sexism.


These ladies wholeheartedly agree, but they want to add that in their opinion a dress like this:

is not significantly less sexist (and they wonder how a woman would self impose such a thing).


19th January 2013, 14:41
Harry Potter

Originally Posted by Blake's Baby View Post
If the books were called 'Hermione Grainger and the Philosopher's Stone' etc, I think that argument would be worth pursuing.

Well, yes, the books are about a boy called Harry Potter, not about a girl called Hermione Granger. It doesn't mean the lives ("lives"?) of all other characters must revolve around Harry Potter. Hermione's clearly doesn't, and this is probably part of her being clever.

I think they are conventional. But you're right that if a central theme of the books was the complicated love affair between harry and Hermione, it would be a different type of convention.

Yup. They would probably suck as much as Twilight.

Gravity works both ways. Ron is indeed grateful and adoring. And Hermione is unsuitable as a conventional wife for a hero, as she's too clever. And, as A Revolutionary Tool has pointed out, that characteristic means that by default she is unnattractive (to Harry, who is the main focus of the books).

Not many girls are attractive to Harry (if I am not missing anything, it boils down to Cho Chang and Ginny Weasley - he certainly finds Fleur attractive, of course, just like everybody else, but it doesn't seem to be the same kind of thing he feels about Cho or Ginny).

I don't think a clever woman is by default unnattractive, or needs to be construed as unnattractive. Hermione is unnattractive to Harry because he sees her as a friend, not as a potential lover, and because he, just like everybody else except Ronald Weasley, understands that Ron is fond of her, and so it is a no-no (if he was attracted to Hermione, it would mean that he wasn't aware of Ron's crush on her, and so would harm the elaborate joke about Ron being the only person who doesn't realise he is in love).

You think Jackson wrote the screenplays and directed the films without reading the books?

No, but I suppose that this is what the conjunction "or" is used for, isn't it? An idiot, or Peter Jackson, or someone who didn't read the books. Meaning you could have read the books if you are Peter Jackson, or that you haven't, if you are not.


19th January 2013, 11:30

Originally Posted by Invader Zim View Post
Harry Potter, if it has any message, is one of simple tolerance. The only serious metaphor, directed at socially educating the reader, is that of 'muggle-born' vs 'pureborn' which is a clear critique of racism. And it is, obviously, very crudely done.

There is also the message that rules are important, and should usually be followed - but that they also should be broken when necessary.


19th January 2013, 11:27

Originally Posted by Blake's Baby View Post
No, she's not described as being 'an unattractive nerdy girl'. She is shown as being a nerdy girl, and the reader is invited to fill in 'unattractive' by themself. What possible attraction could there be in bookish, know-it-all Hermione (who don't let's forget is muggle-born, and therefore, like poor ginger Ron whose family live in a tumbledown house and breed like rabbits, is not one of us)?

It might come as a shock, but perhaps Ms Granger has a mind of her own, and in such mind there is no place for fantasies about Mr. Potter?

She fancies Ron Weasley, and it is funny, because Ron fancies her, too, but is so unaware of his own feelinigs that he doesn't realise it.

(If Harry and Hermione fancied each other, much of the interest of the other characters would wane; they are both so overwhelming that if they formed a couple there would be little to write about anything else than their relationship, and the books would have to change into something much more romantic - and conventional - than they actually are.)

Hermione is feisty and opinionated, and therefore not suitable wife material for our hero. Ginny is grateful and adoring and therefore perfect.

Indeed: Hermione is suitable wife material for Ron Weasley, who is not feisty or opinionated, nor particularly clever or talented, and certainly not very adept of hard work into the mysteries of knowledge.

Or perhaps we should say that Master Weasley is suitable husband material for Ms Granger? (Perhaps, even, because he is grateful and adoring?)

Aragorn is 'special', but anyone who think the Lord of the Rings is about Aragorn is an idiot, or Peter Jackson, or both.

Or simply hasn't read the books, or any reasonable review on them.


18th January 2013, 14:35

Originally Posted by Oswy View Post
The Americans have Batman; super-wealthy vigilante gets to play with cool super-toys while dispatching the bad guys and ignoring the underlying social and economic realities which generate and sustain glaring inequalities. The British have Harry Potter, lol

If so… then UK 473 vs US 0.

As in a soccer game, of course; multiply by 20 and add 6 if you are thinking in terms of basketball.


6th May 2012, 01:29
The books that have influenced us most

The books that must have influenced me more are the books I have read when I was a kid, before I could actually be critical of what I was reading. They are a lot, of course, but I think Monteiro Lobato and Hergé would be the two more influential writers of my childhood.

I was also somewhat influenced by Brazilian realist/regionalist literature, particularly José Lins do Rego, Graciliano Ramos, Érico Veríssimo and Jorge Amado. Hey, everybody is entitled to being a teenager once in life.

And then there is Latino-American fantastic realism - García Marquez, Julio Cortázar, for instance.

1984 and Animal Farm, of course.

Bertolt Brecht.

Anything by Umberto Eco.

Freud, especially Psychopatology of Everyday Life.

Hofstadter's Goedel, Escher, Bach.

And a few historians: Perry Anderson (particularly Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism and Outlines of the Absolutist State), Hobsbawn (his several "Ages"), EP Thompson (The Making of the English Working Class), EH Carr (What is History?). Hm, they are all English. Does this mean something? Let me add Le Goff now, before people go on taking conclusions.

Antonio Barros de Castro, A Economia Brasileira em Marcha Forçada.

OK, enough; into what you are really expecting.

Rosa Luxemburg on the Russian Revolution, and Reform or Revolution.

Marx, Capital Vol. I; The 18th Brumaire; Grundrisse, especially Formen

Engel's The Origin of Family, Private Property and State

Bettelheim's Class Struggle in the Soviet Union

Robert Kurz's Collapse of Modernisation

Poulantzas' Fascism and Dictatorship

Marshall Berman's All that is Solid Melts into Air

Gerd Bornheim's Dialectics

Evidently, I am influenced by those books both in what I accept and what I reject from them.


18th August 2007, 03:55
Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO@August 14, 2007 06:40 pm
The documentary also deals with how the Federal Reserve isn't really a reserve and controlled by corporations, ect.

Usually, this kind of "criticism" of the Federal Reserve is a coded way to express anti-semitism without openly referring to Jews.


10th July 2007, 15:50
Fight Club Owns

It is an overtly reactionary, semi-fascist film. I am surprised that people can take it as anything else. Sheer glorification of pointless violence - even violence against common people.

Reminds me of Franco Freda's rantings about how bombing people would "liberate" them.


25th June 2007, 23:03

Originally posted by Vanguard1917@June 25, 2007 09:54 pm
But i think this is the real prejudice which the film's appeal is based on: the smug liberal middle class prejudice against the rightwing, warmongering 'white trash' masses.

Racism à brasileira: the bourgeois hire Joe Doe as janitor, and tell him to keep "inappropriate" people (*wink, wink, nudge, nudge*) away. And Joe Doe keeps "inappropriate" people away for weeks, months, and years, without anyone questioning it. Then someday Joe Doe tells the ambassador from Ghana to go away, there is a scandal, Joe Doe is fired, and the arseholes who hired him and told him to keep "inappropriate" people away have the face to comment Joe Doe's racism and ignorance. Perhaps they even write to the newspapers to complain about the educational system, that doesn't teach people how to behave properly… :wacko:

In this particular case, the bourgeois arseholes have been too indiscreet about their own prejudices to sound credible in questioning white trash southerners…


Originally posted by Vanguard1917@June 25, 2007 06:07 pm
Those people arguing that this film is insulting to Kazakhs have missed the point of the film.

That may well be. As I said, I barely watched ten minutes of the whutering crap; I almost attacked physically the screen with that arsehole joke about the old woman; and I quit before I went really mad when Bore-at mistook the lift for his hotel apartment. I can't stand this level of obscene prejudice.


25th June 2007, 21:25

Originally posted by Comrade J@June 25, 2007 05:39 pm

Nevermind what intellectualised excuses may be made for that shit, it is rich western people making fun of supposedly miserable and backwards Central Asians - making fun of them because they are poor.

As if Western policies had nothing to do with Khazakstan's problems…

Maybe it is OK for you first-worlders. I am a third-worlder, and I did not find it anyway funny. Sick bastards, they rob us and they have to deride us on top of it?! They may take all their smug Western superiority and shove it right up their white, supposedly clean, arseholes. :angry:


25th June 2007, 14:59

Originally posted by Haligonian Red@November 14, 2006 11:10 pm
I know it's funny, but I'm still not convinced it ought to be…

It is not funny. It is stupid, racist and bigotted. And infuriatingly so.


25th June 2007, 14:47

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist@November 07, 2006 12:45 pm
Apparently the Khazak people are fucking furious.

With good reason. I am not Khazak, and I couldn't stand more than ten minutes of such bigotted trash. It is infuriating.


9th June 2007, 19:22
Sticky: Creative Writing Thread II

Originally posted by Marmot@June 08, 2007 08:54 pm
Luis Henrique, I really liked your story. I thought the description o the old woman dying was really moving.

What does the car represents? The bourgeosie and its relentless violence?

Was "Dog" an insult?


Catarina was a girl, though, not an old woman.

I think the car should remain unexplained, so that each reader can take their own conclusions; but yes, it is a class-driven murder, the UDR being the landlords' main organisation.

And yes, "dog" is an insult.

When I feel again in the translating mode, I will post the following.


18th July 2006, 15:59
Das Kapital

Originally posted by CoexisT@Jul 18 2006, 03:09 AM
Who am I supporting, financially, when I buy Marx's books? The Penguin company (Aren't they the one's that publish the classics?)?

Oh good grief.

Who do you support, financially, when you work for a library? When you eat bread and butter? When you turn your lights on?

We live in a capitalist system; the bourgeoisie has the monopoly of the means of production. If you want to buy commodities, you have to buy them from a capitalist. If you don't like that, you need to help us overthrow the capitalist system. If you want to overthrow the capitalist system, you should read The Capital.

And if there is a capitalist eager to sell you the rope with which you will hang him, buy it.



Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License