NPR piece from Patterson

Talk about the songs, the shows, and anything else DBT related here.

Moderators: Jonicont, mark lynn, Maluca3, Tequila Cowboy, BigTom, CooleyGirl, olwiggum

User avatar
Flea
Posts: 4132
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:33 am
Location: Underneath the veneer

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Flea »

John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:55 pm
Flea wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:39 pm
Good discussion. At the very least, I think we can all agree that Scarlett O"Hara was a complete - what word am I searching for here - See You Next Tuesday?
I know a lot of otherwise sensible women who take Scarlett, with some justification, as a role model for women struggling to survive in a harsh world. Leaving her behind is going to be a heavy lift for them.
I get that.
Now it's dark.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21748
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by beantownbubba »

Jack Flash wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:38 pm
And giant corporations having the ability to, to some degree, dictate what we are and are not able to watch/listen to concerns me greatly. I have a lot of thoughts on the matter that aren't really germane to this discussion. But as long as they're using that power to combat racist ideas in some small way, I guess I'm kind of OK with it.
My compliments, Mr. Flash. A really thoughtful, well written post. For one thing it made me realize how many unstated assumptions are implicated in a number of my assertions and I need to identify and work through those to respond to some of your specific points. But I think the quote above is in many ways the heart of our disagreement.

You're not being glib and your POV is reasonable, but "as long as I agree w/ the powers that be that the subject matter or ideas at issue are bad I'm ok with those powers dictating what we can see and hear" is just not a place I can get to. I suppose the reason I can't get there comes down, in one form or another, to the slippery slope. Making these kinds of decisions based on whether one thinks the subject/content is agreeable or not is dangerous and will inevitably lead to results we will agree are bad, by which time it will be too late (worst case, yes, but I don't think it's inappropriately alarmist).

As I think you agree, there is an important distinction between state action (covered by the First Amendment) and actions taken by powerful, influential forces other than the state, e.g. big media. What I'm coming to recognize as we bat this around is that your (and everyone's) thoughts on that matter are in fact germane to this discussion. On the one hand, they're distracting (issues relating to how free markets work and should be allowed to work; the media's "special obligations" if any to the public, etc can take us pretty far afield pretty quickly); on the other hand it seems that they can't really be separated from the central issues of censorship, artistic expression and the freedom to be exposed to and explore ideas because those institutions are so powerful and wide-reaching and so directly impact what we see and hear. Which in the end means to me that this is getting awfully complicated.

Here's an example of what I'm grappling with as I try to address these various issues and unstated assumptions in a coherent manner. I think it's pretty safe to say that no TV network, movie theater chain, film festival or other above ground distributor of content would show a snuff film. But isn't that a content based decision of the type I've just decried? Is all of this just a matter of degree, not principled decision making? Or what if some uber director like Spielberg or Scorsese made a snuff film that at least some parts of the avant garde or arty crowd insists has artistic merit? Would it be shown? Should it be? Who gets to decide?

On that note, I'm going to take the headache I've given myself and drag myself back to bed to try to get back some of the sleep I missed while writing this.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

Cole Younger
Posts: 3989
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Cole Younger »

jimmyjack wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:06 pm
John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:46 am

You got me curious. Where did he lose you? Do you remember where you stopped reading?
You weren't asking me, but fwiw, he lost me here:

"HBO Max recently announced that it won't be showing Gone With the Wind (at least for now). Good riddance!"

I've never seen Gone With The Wind but this is a slippery slope and I believe that no artist should ever be in favor of censorship of any kind. Not a popular view these days, I realize, but, err, it's how I feel. I also understand that it's slated to return, albeit with some sort of disclaimer or whatever. It still reeks of the sort of moral hysteria that should be familiar to those of us who are old enough to remember chuckling at the ludicrous PMRC hearings during the "satanic panic" of the 80s.

First they banned Gone With The Wind...

Good post, man. Agreed.
A single shot rifle and a one eyed dog.

Cole Younger
Posts: 3989
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Cole Younger »

I used to worry about big government and abuses of power on that front. I’ve gotten older and realize that the federal government is too inefficient and sloppy to get its act together enough to do as much harm as I once feared though it still is a concern.


Instead I worry about large concentrations of power in the hands of corporations as that is who really seems to run the show anyway. Companies deciding what you should and should not be watching may not be censorship by definition but it will do until censorship comes along. There is plenty out there that bothers me so I don’t watch it.
A single shot rifle and a one eyed dog.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21748
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by beantownbubba »

LBRod wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:56 pm
beantownbubba wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:43 pm

What about all those post WWII movies that glorify war w/out revealing the blood and guts of it, the true horrors of it, the inevitable collateral damage of it?
I never saw John Wayne on the sands of Iwo Jima. also, we all should understand "the movie version" by now.
Yes, I had Sands in mind when I wrote that (among others). :)

Your second observation is, I think, a bit more problematic for at least 2 reasons. First, the "by now" matters. What about the 50 years (or whatever) before it became well understood and for the most part was accepted as gospel (except maybe by vets, who, like George A, wouldn't even go see those movies because they knew)?

Moving from history to current events what about the subject matter and artistic approaches that are so current that it's much harder to tell what's being manipulated for what purpose? For example, eventually the "standard" stereotyped version of Black people in the movies disappeared because it was widely recognized that it was factually wrong, morally wrong and damaging. But before then many people didn't think twice about it and wouldn't have realized that they were being manipulated into having certain views, especially if they lived in the large parts of America that did not have much contact with Black people during that period.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

beantownbubba
Posts: 21748
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by beantownbubba »

Jack Flash wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:38 pm

Well, yeah, but the right to representation is constitutionally protected. "The right to watch Gone with the Wind on-demand," so far as I'm aware, is not. Glib answer, I know, given the implications regarding free speech, but can't we flip this around? Are media platforms obligated to show a particular movie if it's not available elsewhere? Why? If there's not enough audience for them to feature it--because it's inflammatory or harmful, or simply because nobody likes it, or any other reason--should they have to? If there's an audience for a movie, it'll be available. If there's not, then it won't. If there is a movie that nobody wants to watch, I don't consider it a threat to freedom if it's unavailable. I consider it a shitty movie.

I'm a bit thrown by your example of "a new work" getting tossed from festivals/networks. If this movie truly "treated Blacks as inferior or... presented slavery as desirable," would that be a bad thing? If it presented such a message and also possessed at least some shred of artistic merit, people would find some way to watch it. Specifically racists. I would see it as a positive thing if a movie like that were hard to find. While protecting artistic expression at nearly all costs is one of the most important things we can do, ending racism is even more important. That's my personal view on things anyway.


I don't know that it would be a good or a bad thing so much as just a thing. If enough people were to decide such a disclaimer provides essential historical context, then sure, why not? The point of these kinds of disclaimers is not to say "this movie is bad and if you like it you are bad"; it's to give context and then you can enjoy it or not enjoy it, problematic aspects be damned. One might then begin to ask where the line ends, but I guess that's not immediate concern of mine at the moment. "Racism is evil" is; I suppose "war is hell" might be at some point. Besides, isn't something like "No animals were harmed in the making of this film" basically a type of disclaimer that's commonplace already? May or may not be comparable, but it just occurred to me.

Without question. And giant corporations having the ability to, to some degree, dictate what we are and are not able to watch/listen to concerns me greatly. I have a lot of thoughts on the matter that aren't really germane to this discussion. But as long as they're using that power to combat racist ideas in some small way, I guess I'm kind of OK with it.
As I said earlier, there are a lot of assumptions underlying both my original posts and your responses. And as I'll say again, h/t on your thougtful and pointed responses.

I think our answers depend to some extent on whether we're assuming a network (let's use that for all media companies for convenience) pulls a movie because it doesn't think it's a money maker v. whether it thinks it's "too controversial" v. whether it disapproves of the message of the move (or a part of it). I don't want to speak for you but i think about each of those circumstances differently, Additionally,I think we should acknowledge the demise of the fairness doctrine which was at least some explicit legal recognition of the power of the media and which sought to impose some standards on how it responded to some of these issues. Without that standard, there literally are no rules and it seems to me that the likelihood of unpopular points of view being censored is much higher, making these issues more important and making it harder to rely on the "there's always somebody who will represent Hitler" avoidance of responsibility.

I don't think either one of us focused too hard on what it means for a network to provide "context" for an artistic work. There are real, serious problems in determining what works require or would benefit from being given context, there are questions about whether viewers would be required to watch the context before they could watch the movie and of course most obviously who creates the context and what does it say? One could, I imagine, create "context" for GWTW which deglamorizes slavery and the genteel way of honorable life depicted while still explaining the Civil War as being fought primarily over states' rights.

Overlaying all of this, and a problem for both our analyses, is the dumbing down of America. One simply can't depend on the "average person" knowing an "average" amount of history (and other subjects relevant to a particular movie). We can't depend on us to exercise properly our critical faculties and to apply a relatively standard toolkit of assumed context to viewing movies or even to understanding basic scientific principles. I think this really clouds the debate and increases its urgency. It would be far better if a more educated populace could be depended on to make some of these decisions as a matter of course.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
Flea
Posts: 4132
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:33 am
Location: Underneath the veneer

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Flea »

beantownbubba wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:24 am


Overlaying all of this, and a problem for both our analyses, is the dumbing down of America. One simply can't depend on the "average person" knowing an "average" amount of history (and other subjects relevant to a particular movie). We can't depend on us to exercise properly our critical faculties and to apply a relatively standard toolkit of assumed context to viewing movies or even to understanding basic scientific principles. I think this really clouds the debate and increases its urgency. It would be far better if a more educated populace could be depended on to make some of these decisions as a matter of course.
And there is your problem in a nutshell. Too many Americans are willfully ignorant and do not care, and too many politicians are willing to further this staus quo for their own benefit. I don't see this changing anytime soon - public education has been gutted on the local and university levels from when I was a kid.
Now it's dark.

User avatar
Jack Flash
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:29 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Jack Flash »

Appreciate the thorough responses, Bubba. Ultimately I think we basically agree on 99% of this issue. These companies are not our friends, they are not doing any of this to be noble - they just want good press and to make a buck. And the specific nature of the "context" they might provide could still result in misinformation. And even if lots of people are indeed stupid, they should be allowed to draw their own conclusions about a given piece of art, generally speaking. The crux of my view on this, though, is that racism and fascism are evil, they're tearing the country and the world apart, and they must be stopped. If putting a couple of relatively neutral sentences of text before Gone with the fucking Wind does a tiny bit to prevent those "six long generations" from becoming seven then I'm all for it.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21748
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by beantownbubba »

Jack Flash wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 8:14 am
even if lots of people are indeed stupid, they should be allowed to draw their own conclusions about a given piece of art, generally speaking.
I agree.
Jack Flash wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 8:14 am
racism and fascism are evil, they're tearing the country and the world apart, and they must be stopped. If putting a couple of relatively neutral sentences of text before Gone with the fucking Wind does a tiny bit to prevent those "six long generations" from becoming seven then I'm all for it.
I forget how long ago this was, but do you remember the Nazi march in Skokie? If not I'll be happy to provide some, errrrr, context ;) The ACLU represented the Nazis and supported their right to march. So did I. Am I correct in thinking you wouldn't? This is the distillation of the means v. ends aka the slippery slope argument and may indicate that we're more than 1% apart. Still, probably in the 80 -90% range.*

*Plus, it's been fun. :D :D
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

beantownbubba wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:49 am
I forget how long ago this was, but do you remember the Nazi march in Skokie? If not I'll be happy to provide some, errrrr, context ;) The ACLU represented the Nazis and supported their right to march. So did I.
I did, too, renewed my membership and everything. The Nazis were not a serious threat at that point in time--they were a joke. The only real danger from that march was that some old Survivors with long memories and good eyesight might buy a few rifles and go out with a bang. A result that I would have been quite pleased to see, I should add, especially since I doubt any of the old ladies and gentlemen would have spent more than a night in jail.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

beantownbubba
Posts: 21748
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by beantownbubba »

John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:18 pm
beantownbubba wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:49 am
I forget how long ago this was, but do you remember the Nazi march in Skokie? If not I'll be happy to provide some, errrrr, context ;) The ACLU represented the Nazis and supported their right to march. So did I.
I did, too, renewed my membership and everything. The Nazis were not a serious threat at that point in time--they were a joke. The only real danger from that march was that some old Survivors with long memories and good eyesight might buy a few rifles and go out with a bang. A result that I would have been quite pleased to see, I should add, especially since I doubt any of the old ladies and gentlemen would have spent more than a night in jail.
Interesting JohnA, for at least 2 reasons:

First, I'm not sure that was the only danger. The risk of pain, emotional damage and even physical responses (e.g. heart attacks) in the local population seemed very real at the time.

Second, the slippery slope is back. I think you know exactly what I'm going to say: Are you arguing that it's ok to protect bad guys only if they're a joke (or, more fairly, only if they're not a real threat)?
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

Cole Younger wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 5:11 pm
I worry about large concentrations of power in the hands of corporations as that is who really seems to run the show anyway. Companies deciding what you should and should not be watching may not be censorship by definition but it will do until censorship comes along.
I don't mind them telling me what I should be watching--they're welcome to their opinion--so long as they don't determine what I can't watch.

We're in a new set of material circumstances now. When information existed physically, producing it was more difficult, and so was distributing it, but once you'd overcome those difficulties, it was awful hard to stop you. The physical artifact is there and you have to destroy them physically to destroy the information. Now that information is virtual, producing is a lot easier, but distribution has the corporate chokehold pretty well locked in. Some pre-commercial* Internet and other early digital institutions got their distribution channels built early, but Giant South American River is the Big Ditch.

We've gone from "information wants to be free" to "informant wants your attention" and this sort of act on HBO's part is part of that shift.

*I knew the guy--John McIntire, I think it was, computing scientist and theremin player--who turned in a guy going under "C-Note" who was trying to buy publicity on the Internet and got him kicked off of the Internet for commercial activity, I think in 1994.
Last edited by John A Arkansawyer on Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

beantownbubba wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:30 pm
John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:18 pm
beantownbubba wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:49 am
I forget how long ago this was, but do you remember the Nazi march in Skokie? If not I'll be happy to provide some, errrrr, context ;) The ACLU represented the Nazis and supported their right to march. So did I.
I did, too, renewed my membership and everything. The Nazis were not a serious threat at that point in time--they were a joke. The only real danger from that march was that some old Survivors with long memories and good eyesight might buy a few rifles and go out with a bang. A result that I would have been quite pleased to see, I should add, especially since I doubt any of the old ladies and gentlemen would have spent more than a night in jail.
Interesting JohnA, for at least 2 reasons:

First, I'm not sure that was the only danger. The risk of pain, emotional damage and even physical responses (e.g. heart attacks) in the local population seemed very real at the time.
That's always a danger with any controversial protest. It was a matter of degree, not of difference in this case.
beantownbubba wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:30 pm
Second, the slippery slope is back. I think you know exactly what I'm going to say: Are you arguing that it's ok to protect bad guys only if they're a joke (or, more fairly, only if they're not a real threat)?
Constitutionally, I don't think it's necessarily okay to protect the good guys when they are a real threat. If you can write a first amendment argument that will keep the girl who burned that police car out of prison, I will personally pay for the first eight hours of your time. But defending her will require a different approach, probably just trying to make sure she doesn't get killed and has a life when she gets out. There's no way she won't go to prison. Unlike my late friend who helped burn a police car during the White Night riots:



It turns out a significant number of people take the slow public murder of a man by four police officers as seriously as people forty years ago took a slap on the wrist for an ex-police officer for the premeditated political murder of two men. More people, in fact, lots more, so I'd call that progress.

So I guess what I'm saying is, when Nazis aren't threatening your life, you should put on The Producers and have a good laugh. If they are threatening your life, you should defend yourself by any means necessary. I suppose there's a middle ground, but I'm not sure it's big enough to keep your balance on.

The courts should deal with this reality the best they can. I'd prefer to get rid of almost all restrictions on public assembly, but that's just me.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
Jack Flash
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:29 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Jack Flash »

beantownbubba wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:49 am
I forget how long ago this was, but do you remember the Nazi march in Skokie? If not I'll be happy to provide some, errrrr, context ;) The ACLU represented the Nazis and supported their right to march. So did I. Am I correct in thinking you wouldn't? This is the distillation of the means v. ends aka the slippery slope argument and may indicate that we're more than 1% apart. Still, probably in the 80 -90% range.*

*Plus, it's been fun. :D :D
That was well before my time, so I had to look it up :D The ACLU did exactly what they should’ve done, and sure, I would have supported it. Or tolerate it, would be a better word. But if I happened to have run a news program back then, instead of covering the marchers directly I might have taken the opportunity to run an informative documentary on Nazi Germany or interview some Holocaust survivors or something like that. I’m 100% pro Nazis having their constitutional rights. I just want to stop them from using major media outlets to spread hateful and violent ideas. Which are two different things in my view. Besides, some podunk little march through the suburbs is hilariously quaint compared to what Nazis are able to do to spread their ideas online today.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21748
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by beantownbubba »

John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:51 pm
Constitutionally, I don't think it's necessarily okay to protect the good guys when they are a real threat.
JohnA, I have no idea what this sentence means.
John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:51 pm
If you can write a first amendment argument that will keep the girl who burned that police car out of prison, I will personally pay for the first eight hours of your time.
I haven't followed the case closely but I imagine the First Amendment argument would go something like, in the context of a protest against police brutality, police racism and arbitrary and dangerous policing, burning a police car is protected political speech.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

beantownbubba
Posts: 21748
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by beantownbubba »

Jack Flash wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 2:57 pm
That was well before my time, so I had to look it up The ACLU did exactly what they should’ve done, and sure, I would have supported it. Or tolerate it, would be a better word. But if I happened to have run a news program back then, instead of covering the marchers directly I might have taken the opportunity to run an informative documentary on Nazi Germany or interview some Holocaust survivors or something like that. I’m 100% pro Nazis having their constitutional rights. I just want to stop them from using major media outlets to spread hateful and violent ideas. Which are two different things in my view. Besides, some podunk little march through the suburbs is hilariously quaint compared to what Nazis are able to do to spread their ideas online today.
Allow me to provide a little context: One of the reasons this was such a cause celebre at the time was that the Nazis were expected to show up in force, well into 4 figures IIRC. Ultimately the event was an anticlimactic fizzle, presumably because the Nazis are cowards, but that was not how the build up was treated or understood. A little bit like, say, Trump's Tulsa rally :)

Again, subject to my memory, but I think you're exactly right: There were LOTS of stories featuring or focusing on survivors, their stories and their reactions to the proposed march. As I remember it, the media pretty much did its job on that occasion.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

beantownbubba wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 4:00 pm
John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:51 pm
Constitutionally, I don't think it's necessarily okay to protect the good guys when they are a real threat.
JohnA, I have no idea what this sentence means.
It means riotous behavior is and will remain illegal regardless of the rightness of the cause. Whenever I engaged in such behavior in my younger days, I expected to be punished if caught.

I regard the girl who burned the police car as one of the good guys, one of my people. I'll defend her and her acts. But she's caught on camera and pretending she won't do time for it is irresponsible. I took my own risks and didn't delude people about the dangers such behavior it entailed. A lot of things can get in the way when you're trying to do what's right.
beantownbubba wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 4:00 pm
John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:51 pm
If you can write a first amendment argument that will keep the girl who burned that police car out of prison, I will personally pay for the first eight hours of your time.
I haven't followed the case closely but I imagine the First Amendment argument would go something like, in the context of a protest against police brutality, police racism and arbitrary and dangerous policing, burning a police car is protected political speech.
I've made arguments like that, too--not in court, but in First Amendment disputes with cities--and knew they were moral victories at best. I don't see that winning, much as I'd like to see it happen.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

SXDX
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:21 pm
Location: Mentor, Ohio

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by SXDX »

Zip Up to Michigan wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:45 am
What a massive eye roll. Couldn't get through that entire piece.
It's been a week since I read it and I'm still shaking my head.

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

SXDX wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:15 pm
Zip Up to Michigan wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:45 am
What a massive eye roll. Couldn't get through that entire piece.
It's been a week since I read it and I'm still shaking my head.
I, too, shake my head in admiration.

Patterson found a way to put DBT in the public eye in hard times without saying anything untrue or unfelt, with generosity to the deserving living and one good slap in the face to a stinking corpse.

Some of you have never tried to use words to make the world and it shows.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

SXDX
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:21 pm
Location: Mentor, Ohio

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by SXDX »

John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:17 am
SXDX wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:15 pm
Zip Up to Michigan wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:45 am
What a massive eye roll. Couldn't get through that entire piece.
It's been a week since I read it and I'm still shaking my head.
I, too, shake my head in admiration.

Patterson found a way to put DBT in the public eye in hard times without saying anything untrue or unfelt, with generosity to the deserving living and one good slap in the face to a stinking corpse.

Some of you have never tried to use words to make the world and it shows.
Keep on virtue signaling if it helps you sleep at night. Blacks dont give a shit.

Also, please show me one example of any human being that has been hurt/offended what by the name Drive-by Truckers.

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

SXDX wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:48 pm
blah blah blah some fucking bullshit (paraphrased for brevity and clarity)
I only have two things to say to that:
me wrote:You can lead a boy to culture, but you can't make him think.
also me wrote:I'm pointing to the moon. You just think I'm giving you the finger.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

And as for "Gone with the Wind", there is absolutely no moment in it where it could not be improved by telling Quentin Tarantino he had access to all the outtakes and an unlimited budget to end it in five minutes a la "The Dirty Dozen" (PG-13 cut) or "Inglorius Basterds" (NC-17 cut). I love a happy ending.

This one is going to be a very long song:
...gutshot on the parlor floor,
Atlanta burnt around her in her mind.
"I hope she dies before the fire reaches...
I wouldn't even wish that hell on her."
The soldier nods. He's new to war. This killing
Didn't trouble him so much. In Iowa,
He'd helped his mother butcher lambs he'd raised
By hand, and bottle-fed, once their poor mother
Bled to death, consum'd by that which he had nourished by,
By hand, by damn (he seldom cursed), his hand
That later stroked their heads and slashed their throats
In one quick coup, with tearfulness and mercy
Early on. The tears dried up. The mercy turned
Like milk to habit, and that habit yet remained.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Jack Flash wrote:
beantownbubba wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:49 am
I forget how long ago this was, but do you remember the Nazi march in Skokie? If not I'll be happy to provide some, errrrr, context ;) The ACLU represented the Nazis and supported their right to march. So did I. Am I correct in thinking you wouldn't? This is the distillation of the means v. ends aka the slippery slope argument and may indicate that we're more than 1% apart. Still, probably in the 80 -90% range.*

*Plus, it's been fun. :D :D
That was well before my time, so I had to look it up :D The ACLU did exactly what they should’ve done, and sure, I would have supported it. Or tolerate it, would be a better word. But if I happened to have run a news program back then, instead of covering the marchers directly I might have taken the opportunity to run an informative documentary on Nazi Germany or interview some Holocaust survivors or something like that. I’m 100% pro Nazis having their constitutional rights. I just want to stop them from using major media outlets to spread hateful and violent ideas. Which are two different things in my view. Besides, some podunk little march through the suburbs is hilariously quaint compared to what Nazis are able to do to spread their ideas online today.
Yeah, their march didn’t amount to much but to add to the context, at the time Skokie had the largest concentration of Jewish people outside of Israel. I grew up 1 block from the border Skokie and, while we had moved by then, I remember how upset folks were.

All that said, those Nazis were more ridiculous than dangerous (spoofed hilariously in The Blues Brothers “I hate Illinois Nazis”). Today’s are much more of a threat but are no less protected by the First Amendment.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

User avatar
schlanky
Posts: 1189
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:27 pm
Location: Take a left on the interstate.

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by schlanky »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:33 am
All that said, those Nazis were more ridiculous than dangerous (spoofed hilariously in The Blues Brothers “I hate Illinois Nazis”).
Blues Brothers was my favorite movie growing up. I had absolutely no idea that Illinois Nazis were a real thing.
Let the outside air in

Post Reply