JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
Some times Charlie was in the trees.
User ID: 4009
As a subscriber to The Critical Drinker and a bit of a "YouTube tirade" person myself, you have a point.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
6hr ago
Are movies still a thing post 2020?
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
7hr ago
Not only cannon, but privately owned warships were an entire thing.
The difficulty with 2A is that a straightforward reading is not really compatible with a stable modern society.
I see this claim thrown around as obviously true on a regular basis but I don't think it really stands up to scrutiny. Something about an armed society being a polite society.
How are you defining "stable" and "modern" in this context? Do New York and California count? Do Texas and Florida not?
The topic being explored here is: If the bad guys in Taken were coded brown, would it be the same movie? Obviously not.
I do not think it's obvious at all, nor do I agree with the claim that "Taken does not code against foreigners".
Likewise I don't buy the claim that "when a white takes revenge on the brown outsider, it sticks out like a sore thumb". Maybe in a German movie, but in the US Black gang-bangers and South American drug cartels exist as stock villains right alongside Nazis, Communists, and Arabs.
Again, I haven't seen Citizen Vigilante but I think your framing reveals more about you and how you view the world than it does the movie. You being a German would explain a lot.
Its the typical Democrat, "our violence is speech, your speech is violence" juxtaposition. January 6th was "an insurrection" that warranted a wide-reaching crack-down on anyone even tangentially involved, but getting together with your friends to shoot at cops and commit a bit of light arson is just all in good fun.
JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
11hr ago
What are the material properties of these "rights" you refer to?
What does it mean for something to be "inalienable" within a materialist framework?
The belief in rights as something distinct and inalienable, rather than something that is bestowed (and can thus be revoked) by the state was an observably conservative/illiberal notion in Lewis' day and i think it has only become more so with time.
This will be some an half-formed nonsense blatted out 5 minutes before going to bed but I think that one of the major innovations of western civilization, and a major driver of it's success was the development of a bright line distinction between the moral/religious world and the material. IE "Render unto Caesar that which is Ceasar's, and Render unto God that which is God's". It also seems to me that much of [current year] moral and political philosophy is organized around the of undoing this innovation as post-modernism is itself a reaction against the success of Western Civilization.
When discussing modern liberalism the state is best understood as a substitute for religion. Whether any given act is moral or immoral is entirely determined by politics not principle.
More options
Context Copy link