81–90 of 105 posts
This article rightfully praises the Ghibli movies for their non-Manichean stories, especially when compared to Disney or Hollywood blockbusters. Yet I'm surprised it missed an important example: in the first film entirely directed by Hayao Miyazaki, Nausicäa is far from an angel. In my eyes, she is Miyazaki's most ambiguous character. Warning, spoiler ahead . When her valley is invaded, the peaceful Nausicäa runs to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two. As a statement, it sounds poetic at first, and the first two sentences are absolutely perfect; however, there's something very wrong about the notion of "preserving the balance", and I've seen that noti…
I believe the idea is that human notions of 'evil' are based on imperfect knowledge, at best. Therefore, quite often one person's 'evil' is another's 'justice' and letting people rampage in pursuit of it does not make for a peaceful society. Rather, people have to be able to work together in spite of their differing ideals, instead of hoping to be able to eliminate or marginalize everyone who might not believe the sa…
This becomes concrete when we are talking about a state which formally supported the Nazis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I mean, it's an 18-year old movie. What did you expect? Huh, like people who are 15 years old who would not have watched it yet ? Do you think people watch all movies that came before them ? > I mean, it's an 18-year old movie. It's a 27 years old movie actually. Get your facts right.
> It's a 27 years old movie actually. Get your facts right. That... I mean... That just proves my point more. Jesus. I'm sorry that I apparently made a blunder in my quick mental math and provided a more conservative answer than the truth. Stop making it sound like it ruins my entire argument, especially since my argument wasn't even based on the exact number of years. Instead, my argument was that after a certain am…
So you assume folks who are in their teenage years have to forget about seeing older movies without any spoiler? Is that your conclusion ?
Instead of you know, putting a spoiler tag, which takes 5 seconds when you write an article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some things really are evil. Not nearly as many as people call "evil", but some things genuinely, objectively, are evil. Take Pol Pot, for example. He deliberately killed one quarter of his country's population. If you think it's just my decision to call that evil, then you are from a place that is so morally different from me that I don't know how to even begin having a conversation with you. But Pol Pot thought he…
Let's not forget the context in which poor and unsophisticated people decided that was a good idea, and the names of the international aggressors whose crimes encompass the evil of the whole conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal Do you think that President Kennedy was an evil man?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a 27 years old movie actually. Get your facts right. That... I mean... That just proves my point more. Jesus. I'm sorry that I apparently made a blunder in my quick mental math and provided a more conservative answer than the truth. Stop making it sound like it ruins my entire argument, especially since my argument wasn't even based on the exact number of years. Instead, my argument was that after a certain am…
> If we worried about spoilers for a 27-year old movie, this article wouldn't exist. So you assume folks who are in their teenage years have to forget about seeing older movies without any spoiler? Is that your conclusion ? Instead of you know, putting a spoiler tag, which takes 5 seconds when you write an article.
Plus, many platforms don't have spoiler tags by default, so have fun putting these magical spoiler tags in.
Edit: And you know what? If you were a 15-year old teen with an interest in Miyazaki's movies, or war movies, or whatever interests you to want to watch said movie, and you've just been let onto the internet, what are you going to look for first? The movie that you so desperately want to see, or an article about it that could potentially spoil it? Like seriously, that's how ridiculous your hypothetical is right now. The chance of it happening is so absurdly low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we worried about spoilers for a 27-year old movie, this article wouldn't exist. So you assume folks who are in their teenage years have to forget about seeing older movies without any spoiler? Is that your conclusion ? Instead of you know, putting a spoiler tag, which takes 5 seconds when you write an article.
Yes. They had several years as teens to have watched the movie if they so choose. They decided not to, maybe because they hadn't heard of the movie (and, really, would have probably heard of the movie based on the interests before seeing the spoiler), maybe because it didn't interest them (in which case, whatever, the spoiler won't ruin anything). Too bad for them. They had their chance, they didn't take it. It makes…
you dont need spoiler tags, you simply write down in words:"careful spoilers" in case you can't even be bothered finding a CMS that does spoilers.
> what are you going to look for first?
What if you are on HN, you stumble on this article you had no idea of, and did not know about Ghibli movies - and poof, you are spoiled without warning. That's how ridiculous your point is. The possibility is very real. If you don't see it, no point discussing it further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Economic sanctions are an alternative to war. And frankly one of the reasons I think they should be taken off the table entirely is because they are far too easy an alternative. At least in war, some of the victims have their faces broadcast on television. The victims of economic sanctions are never heard of except as dry statistics. > Are you suggesting we should have bombed Iraq instead at the time? Or just let S…
I would much rather be subjected to economic sanctions than bombed, but I guess I don't speak for everyone. Maybe some people prefer to be bombed.
In any case, I wasn't proposing to spend twelve years bombing Iraq instead of the economic sanctions. I was proposing that after Saddam had been kicked out of Kuwait, that should have been the end of the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. They had several years as teens to have watched the movie if they so choose. They decided not to, maybe because they hadn't heard of the movie (and, really, would have probably heard of the movie based on the interests before seeing the spoiler), maybe because it didn't interest them (in which case, whatever, the spoiler won't ruin anything). Too bad for them. They had their chance, they didn't take it. It makes…
> Plus, many platforms don't have spoiler tags by default, so have fun putting these magical spoiler tags in. you dont need spoiler tags, you simply write down in words:"careful spoilers" in case you can't even be bothered finding a CMS that does spoilers. > what are you going to look for first? What if you are on HN, you stumble on this article you had no idea of, and did not know about Ghibli movies - and poof, you…
You are making a big deal about something that is neither a big deal, nor likely to happen.
I'm not even comment on the fact that this, of all places, is going to be the last place your mind suddenly opens up to the magic that is Ghibli. If you were inclined to enjoy those movies, you would have found them through friends, or anime discussion boards, or some other place, not by looking at some article about war films.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word 'balance' is vague and overused, to be sure. Here's my suggestion for a kind of action: if you have to respond to aggression, make the response targeted and limited to what is necessary. For example, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the right thing to do was use the military force necessary to kick him out. It should have stopped there. It should not have continued with twelve years of economic sanctions…
Well, Saddam's was one of the worst regimes since the Nazis. We really can't do anything right as far as intervention, at some point we have to accept we can't make things work out in other people's countries and there will always be evil rulers we can't do anything about.
Saddam was a villain to be sure, but as far as people actually living in Iraq were concerned, his regime was nowhere near as bad as what followed. For some reasons why, check out http://riverbendblog.blogspot.ie/
> We really can't do anything right as far as intervention, at some point we have to accept we can't make things work out in other people's countries and there will always be evil rulers we can't do anything about.
I agree completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In his own words, “You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two.”
> You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two. As a statement, it sounds poetic at first, and the first two sentences are absolutely perfect; however, there's something very wrong about the notion of "preserving the balance", and I've seen that noti…
So it's not that he's saying we need to defend the balance with evil; rather, we should defend the balance with the people we see as evil. Because their side sees us as evil, and unless we seek balance, the only solutions are extermination of one side or the other, or eternal war.