Political Message on Avatar Movie

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

With you, the only definition more slippery than that of capitalism is that of socialism, which label you’ve conferred on many different things. Forgive me if I tune you out while you claim that a perfect example of socialism in the literal sense (decisions are made socially) is not socialist.

[quote]It is a private company with a unique owner structure.

So if you want to use it as an example for more socialism, it would have never been allowed to develop under any form of “socialism” so far.[/quote]

That may very well be, but it’s because the things you regard as socialism aren’t.

82

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:And again, not really.

Capitalism for me is short hand for free markets, property rights and a government that stays out of micromanaging the economy.[/quote]

I thought I made this clear, but I’ll just come out and say it: I don’t care what capitalism is “to you.” I’m talking about what capitalism is.

Oh, except for crises in 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929…

No rebranding necessary. It frequently does that all on its own. Just because you don’t like to acknowledge it doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to talk about it. This is what I’m talking about: you’re constantly trying to narrow the definition and put in all kinds of exceptions.

No, that’s the point which you’re trying to extract from what I’m saying. I’m saying capitalism goes to shit.

It doesn’t matter how you understand it, it matters how it happens in the real world. Oh yeah, that thing. Uncle Mises doesn’t bring it up much, but yeah, it’s important.

[/quote]
Well let’s see the USSR had an economic crisis from 1917 through 1990…What model.

83

What else happens in this comic book you’re talking about?

84

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:So if you could enlighten us who does the trading in a free market without private property?
[/quote]

Companies.
[/quote]

Owned by whom?

Who do they sell to?

[/quote]

The workers, and consumers, respectively.
[/quote]

So unless the people who work there also own it, it is not private property?

Care to rethink your position?

Interestingly enough that would make me a socialist.

85

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:I have never changed my definition.

It is just that when you point at “market failure” I point out that the market for money is nonexistent.

That is not a change of definitions but accepting the reality that interest rates are not the product of market forces but of price fixing.[/quote]

See, there you go. The US has a central bank, therefore, anything bad that happens is the central bank’s fault and has nothing to do with financial markets getting prices wrong. You are constantly making qualifications like this.

In fact, as I pointed out earlier and which you ignored, the Federal Reserve significantly reduced the expansion of the money supply at the same time the bubble was inflating, so that at its peak, it was nearly constant. In addition, you ignore the other effects influencing prices, zeroing in on the convenient (but of course, incorrect) target.[/quote]

It does not matter what the Fed did after the horses were out of the barn.

They blew up the bubble BY TRIPLING THE MONEY SUPPLY.

Whether they made some cosmetic corrections afterwards is next to irrelevant.

They are still proping up the prices real estate, at the cost of prolongoing this mess.

On the other hand, in Europe, where the central bank has a target of 2% inflation per year we do no have a similar problem in the “real” economy like the US does.

Our financial system yes, because those were closely linked to the US system, our “real” economy no, because the misallocation of resources never took place.

I do not misrepresent anything, you try to major in the minors.

Nothing you pointed out matters in the light of a FUCKING TRIPLING OF THE MONEY SUPPLY.

Its like a fart in a storm.

86

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

With you, the only definition more slippery than that of capitalism is that of socialism, which label you’ve conferred on many different things. Forgive me if I tune you out while you claim that a perfect example of socialism in the literal sense (decisions are made socially) is not socialist.

[quote]It is a private company with a unique owner structure.

So if you want to use it as an example for more socialism, it would have never been allowed to develop under any form of “socialism” so far.[/quote]

That may very well be, but it’s because the things you regard as socialism aren’t.[/quote]

Well them, let us have capitlism and you are perfectly free to build “socialism”, whatever that is, at your own time and money.

87

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
What else happens in this comic book you’re talking about?[/quote]

50 million people died, children were indoctrinated to snitch on their parents, famines, ideological wars, militarism, gulags and censorship.

I think that covers it.

88

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Valor wrote:
This movie was written by an idiot. There isn’t one original thought in the entire thing. Oh sure it looks good… But its an empty shells.

What really pissed me off though is the use of White men and the military as the bad guys. Is JC unaware that,GULP…the military DOES WHAT the Congress and the C-in-C tell us to? Is he unaware that the, mostly DEMOCRATIC, Congress VOTED TO GO INTO IRAQ?

I guess that idiot Bush just fooled everyone, right?

Fuck him.[/quote]

I rip this movie apart over in GAL forum. And indeed your criticisms are very valid.

It looks like the movie was a collaboration between John Kerry and Al Gore.
[/quote]

You know, I did not watch this movie, but I noticed this same kind of thing in the horrible kid flick Wall-E. Not only extremely boring, but obviously left wing slant. I fucking hate politics in my entertainment. They thick we’re to dumb to notice it and they can sneak some subliminal message in there somehow unnoticed. If you are making a move with a political message, let me know so I can avoid it. This goes for the right too, I don’t want to think about politics 24/7. It’s agony on the cranium.[/quote]

If you never enjoy entertainment that doesn’t have some sort of political message I guess you don’t get out much.

I can’t off the top of my head think of any movie that doesn’t have some sort of message, and most of them are not exactly hidden. It is not some sort of secret conspiracy, it is the fact that entertainment is produced by human beings who have views.

I don’t see what the big issue is, be aware of the message, decide if you agree with it or not, sit back, eat the pop-corn, watch the pretty pictures.

For me, the story telling in Avatar was a bit clumsy and it was a teensy bit obvious but that was more than made up for by the jaw dropping effects. I can’t wait for the sequel.

89

The thing that is really clever about this movie is that it gets people into the cinema. I very rarely watch movies at the cinema because I hate the interruption of the people around me. I also hate not being able to pause the movie to take a slash 2.5 hrs and 3/4 of a big gulp in. This movie however due to the special effects really has to be seen on a big screen to appreciate it (just saw it in 3D on an Imax screen).

This gets the dollars back to the movie company and away from pirates. You guys want to talk about free market and capitalism, well this movie is a great case study!

90

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
The thing that is really clever about this movie is that it gets people into the cinema. I very rarely watch movies at the cinema because I hate the interruption of the people around me. I also hate not being able to pause the movie to take a slash 2.5 hrs and 3/4 of a big gulp in. This movie however due to the special effects really has to be seen on a big screen to appreciate it (just saw it in 3D on an Imax screen).

This gets the dollars back to the movie company and away from pirates. You guys want to talk about free market and capitalism, well this movie is a great case study![/quote]

This shouldn’t even be called a movie…that would require a plot and chracters and stuff…

This is like 2 and a half hours of looking at sparly things.

91

I wouldn’t get to excited about this flick. It was great in the special effects part and pretty soft in plot and acting. i don’t recall seeing a more visually stunning movie, but that was all that I liked about it.

The rest was pretty lame.

92

[quote]Valor wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
The thing that is really clever about this movie is that it gets people into the cinema. I very rarely watch movies at the cinema because I hate the interruption of the people around me. I also hate not being able to pause the movie to take a slash 2.5 hrs and 3/4 of a big gulp in. This movie however due to the special effects really has to be seen on a big screen to appreciate it (just saw it in 3D on an Imax screen).

This gets the dollars back to the movie company and away from pirates. You guys want to talk about free market and capitalism, well this movie is a great case study![/quote]

This shouldn’t even be called a movie…that would require a plot and chracters and stuff…

This is like 2 and a half hours of looking at sparly things. [/quote]

This movie had as good or better acting, plot and characters as most ‘hollywood’ movies that have been put out in the last 20 years and significantly better than a pure effects movie like 300.

93

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Valor wrote:
This movie was written by an idiot. There isn’t one original thought in the entire thing. Oh sure it looks good… But its an empty shells.

What really pissed me off though is the use of White men and the military as the bad guys. Is JC unaware that,GULP…the military DOES WHAT the Congress and the C-in-C tell us to? Is he unaware that the, mostly DEMOCRATIC, Congress VOTED TO GO INTO IRAQ?

I guess that idiot Bush just fooled everyone, right?

Fuck him.[/quote]

I rip this movie apart over in GAL forum. And indeed your criticisms are very valid.

It looks like the movie was a collaboration between John Kerry and Al Gore.
[/quote]

You know, I did not watch this movie, but I noticed this same kind of thing in the horrible kid flick Wall-E. Not only extremely boring, but obviously left wing slant. I fucking hate politics in my entertainment. They thick we’re to dumb to notice it and they can sneak some subliminal message in there somehow unnoticed. If you are making a move with a political message, let me know so I can avoid it. This goes for the right too, I don’t want to think about politics 24/7. It’s agony on the cranium.[/quote]

Really Wall-E?

Humans trash planet, leave robots to clean up, humans get fat in utopian space ship, robot brings plant to humans, humans rebuild earth.

since when did saying that living in a existence void of responsibility and character is a bad thing, and learning from your mistakes is a good thing, become left wing?

the christian sentiments of the movie were a lot more obvious than any others, but actually worked well with the story.

94

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

That may very well be, but it’s because the things you regard as socialism aren’t.[/quote]

Your “textbook” definition of socialism has no basis in reality and does not exist in reality.

95

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I can’t off the top of my head think of any movie that doesn’t have some sort of message, and most of them are not exactly hidden. It is not some sort of secret conspiracy, it is the fact that entertainment is produced by human beings who have views.

I don’t see what the big issue is, be aware of the message, decide if you agree with it or not, sit back, eat the pop-corn, watch the pretty pictures.

[/quote]

This.

96

I have not read the thread , but the movie was AWSOME. I heard the story was weak, I totally disagree

97

The story is weak pittbulll, but really, the main point was the VISUAL effects. That’s all this movie was ever supposed to do: wow people with how crazy it looks. The character development/dialogue isn’t too bad, but it is nothing special. The plot is basic: blue aliens vs. bad mercenaries, good vs bad in this case. James Cameron knew this, but again, the main point of the movie was to enter cinema into a new world of technology on the screen.

98

Sorry to bump this but I came across this article…

Wow.

99

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
This is just how scifi is. They are usually pushing a very liberal agenda because the future is associated with social change, which is what liberals usually want.

If you want to read some scifi where things go differently try SM Stirling’s “Drakka” series. No happy endings with members of all races and creeds holding hands and dancing under a rainbow there. [/quote]

Maybe, but have you ever heard of Heinlein. L. Neil Smith, or Koontz? They all have rightwing/libertarian message.

Check out Pallas, Dark Rivers of the Heart, or any Heinlein if you want some right wing kind of sci fi.[/quote]

Heinlein was a rightwinger? Stranger in a Strange Land is the most anti-christian, anti-family values, socially progressive book I have ever read. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress had similar elements. There certainly is a libertarian message but I don’t think that libertarians are rightwing in terms of American politics, because they are also socially liberal believing that the government doesn’t have a right to legislate morality (gay rights, abortion, church/state, etc).

Some people say that Starship Troopers is a pro-militarism story, but it seemed to me like they were also mocking it a little bit as not the most effective course.

That’s it for my Heinlein experience, are there some real rightwing stories I am missing out on?

I never read the others.[/quote]

I really doubt Heinlein was mocking the military in Starship troopers. The man was ex-navy.

The best sci-fi is either apolitical or else gives both sides an equal say. Though I only read classic sci-fi. The genre has probably been taken over by retarded socialists by now.

100

I’m trying to find the article I saw on Yahoo the other day. There are some groups now saying Avatar is racist, because it depicts the white man swooping to save the day (or oppress depending on the view) of a different race.