We're all down there, in the twisting depths. And we don't know who is pulling the strings but this entire ordeal is set up to see if we crack. Having solved the other challenges, the vending machine that is also the slide to the next stage implies some pretty horrible glass-and-filth things if we activate the slide "wrong" ...and some moderately horrible (glass OR filth) things if we do it right.

One of us breaks away to backtrack up, reach the surface that way. On a higher, more spacious level he encounters a large number of younger women in some looks-centred profession (commercial actors? hosts?) who have a different set of challengces. Les repugnant to us, more to them.

Who is putting us through these paces?

A second person break off to ascend past where we entered, high and higher un-levels. Eventually she reaches the case of Next Gen, only with a few substitutions (Diana's CAFAB-looking son, for example)


 A dream of Snowpiercer. Only this was really good and had no plot holes. In fact, the rest of the world was running along just fine - it was merely perpetually chilly out, a sudden but not dire ice age, and other trains and commerce were proceeding in the usual fashion. We were just going too fast to see anything. Still, the rebellion had to continue.


At the Battle of Stalingrad. No overt fighting in the safe zone. Just lots of cautious movement for fear of snipers, and gross deprivation. Always always cold.

[Name redacted] how do you quantify to what extent something is anti-liberal and misogynistic and stack it up against other entities like say colonialism, evangelical Christianity, or intercontinental slavery (which, admittedly, overlap/ped) to decide it is the "most?" Also - do you consider the Hadith to be a Islamic, or merely tradition? What about Sufi? Or are we just talking the Qu'ran? (Not the Penguin translation I hope ). Or do you mean politicians who justify their actions as being Islamic? Wahabi'ism? Islamic Socialism? Over what span of time? Do you consider the rejection of the use of the "zero" by the Catholic Church (because it was too Muslim) to be anti-liberal, or would something more recent like (see my next comment) be a better example? What is especially bad about Indonesia versus another country of comparable economic, geographic and historical circumstance?

The subtext: it's hard to qualify what's the most fucked up, especially when you can't draw a clear line around what is and is not a religion, and especially when there's a lot of bad to go around.
Just now ยท Like


The most fucked up thing in my mind is that we're going to war with a group that has roots in the Taliban - a group that was trained and armed by Christian religious conservative governments on our side to fight the Soviets, who were an invading Atheist state (who, on top of the Giant War Machine, turned "international women's day" into a day to thank housewives for keep on given'er). There's a lot of violence and misogyny to go around.

Despite the above fracas, there are Christian, Muslim and Atheist roots for equality and peace.

I don't agree with the Qu'ran, but I also have serious bones to pick with sexism and technophobia in the Dao De Jing, rape culture in the Torah, and sexism in online Atheist communities. What's in a religion's core matters, but there's a lot to be said for what we do with it.

The way out of repeating this mess for future generations is, IMHO, not to form alliances based on being a dick to a mutual enemy, but on finding common ground for progress. And there's a lot of room for that.
I have to say that I'm impressed by the Mumbai attacks. They killed around 200 people and got global coverage (unlike, say, the annual rate of auto accidents in a small city, or women vanishing from the area just West of my house). And all this without anyone knowing why they did it. The Indian government is pissed off at Pakistan and thinking of creating an anti-terror ministry to prevent... whatever this thing is. How do you hope to prevent a form of crime if you don't even have a motive?

I take back anything I might have said about the Dark Knight being implausible. I guess the only thing missing from the movie was worldwide news coverage and stupid government antics.

I would like to see a change in our response to terror. First: snub the offenders. Second: find NGO's that the would drive the terrorist organization in question up the wall (like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan?) and spend our war dollars on them. The message: If you try to scare us into an eschetonic war, we will ignore you and fund your level-headed non-violent opponents.

I think that if We need to score points on Them, We should try to avoid this whole mutual annihilation* thing in favour of another strategy, that being revenge sex.

Consider: it's the 80's and you turn on the TV to see the Gipper saying "Mr. Gorbachev, I fucked your wife."

A hell of a lot better than the Star Wars program. Of course, if we made hot love not cold war, we'd still have boondoggle national defence, but it'd be ramapant sexualization instead of millitarization. Monkey Puppet would drop the missile defence so that billions of dollars could go to putting giant condoms in space or something.

*often by Proxy. That is to say the thtreat of mutually assured destruction is preserved by cooperatively beating the crap out of a areas of no consequence such as Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, South America, Africa or just the rest of the world. Both sides in the Cold War could cooperate pretty well as long as they could have a scene where they pretend to fight while mutually pummelling a hapless third party.



August 2017

678910 1112


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 17th, 2017 05:54 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios