Libcom is often guilty of this, using "working class politics" as synonymous with "libertarian communist politics".
There's nothing innately working class about any particular economic model we might long for, nor any particular form of praxis to get us there.
(Part 9)
From what I can see, the general thrust of a lot of the negative reviews of this film have less to do with fairly judging it on its own merits and more reflect the reviewers wishing it were something else entirely.
Like criticising a spoon for not being a knife.
(Part 8)
Finally, I've seen it called "fanfiction" and Wattpad-ification of the book.
To which I say, yes, and?
There's some really good fan fiction. Including erotic reinterpretations of stories. Some of them are really good. This is just an example of one that made it to the big screen.
(Part 7)
The Oliver and Dalton movies both do versions of the story as a tragic romance and get far less flak. But they too stray far from the essence of the original story.
So again, fidelity to the source material isn't a valid criticism unless that's what it's was going for. And it wasn't.
(Part 6)
... I think that it's still manages to educe aspects of the book that, from what I'm aware, have never been put to screen before; such as Nelly Dean being portrayed as an active part of the chaos instead of a passive observer. They even highlight it in that scene about the Nurse in R&J.
(Part 5)
Go in with THAT in mind, and it does a fantastic job. It's lush, gorgeous, visually stunning, impeccably acted, and plays like an onanistic daydream elevated to high art.
Furthermore, even though it's more a reimagining of the book than a traditional adaptation ...
(Part 4)
A work, any work, should be judged based on what it's trying to do and whether it does a good job of doing that.
What weathering Heights was trying to do, at least as far as I can see, was make a type of expressionistic, erotic fairy tale — with a lot of dark humour mixed in.
(Part 3)
There are already several more faithful screen adaptations, such as the BBC serials, that follow the original novel to the letter.
It's not as if it's never been done before and this was a missed opportunity to finally get it accomplished.
(Part 2)
First, and most obvious of all, the question of fidelity.
It's not TRYING to be a faithful adaptation of the source material. It's taking the characters and loose plot of the book and doing its own thing with them. Guillermo del Toro did the same thing with his Frankenstein movie
(Part 1)
I only seem to pop back to this app to do these, but here I go ...
I love the novel Wuthering Heights. I've also seen every film adaptation and several television adaptations.
And I absolutely LOVED the Emerald Fennell movie. The discourse trashing it is filled with stupidity.
There's two-level consequentialism.
Rule consequentialism for when you need to respond quickly and can't think everything out.
Act consequentialism for when you're in a position to consider everything in detail.
Also, come on, the Kate Bush scene was fucking brilliant.
A surprisingly sincere dialogue that builds on the themes of parenthood and growth from the first movie, undercut by absolute hilarity, which itself is undercut by a serious and somewhat tragic line about parent-child miscommunication.
And it's not even one of those things where you're like, "Oh, I know it's not good, but I like it anyway."
No.
I legitimately think that I'm right and almost everybody else is wrong.
It was funny, surprisingly heartfelt, and showed actual growth in both themes and characters from the first movie.
This has nothing to do with anything and will seem really out of left field, but...
Almost everyone is wrong about M3GAN 2.0. This movie was so much fun.
I just really wanted to get that off my chest because people whose opinions I normally respect are either meh or negative on this movie.
(5)
Personally, I think the best way to view the topic philosophically is to view direct participatory democracy as a BRIDGE between what we have now and a truly radical form of social anarchy
So democracy is not a synonym for anarchy, as some claim, but nor is it something totally divorced from it
(4)
However, I would hope that even the anto-democracy anarchists can appreciate that what the other side mean by an anarchist form of "democratisation" would be the perfect grounds from which to create the more substantive type of autonomy and free association that they crave.
(3)
But it amounts to the same thing in practice.
The real split only comes into effect later on when, hypothetically, we've achieved a much fuller form of self-directed and co-federated organization.
And yes, this is an issue we'll eventually have to worry about.
(2)
... I don't see any difference that can't be overcome — at least in terms of struggling for greater autonomy and horizontality in the jere and now.
We all want to increase self-directed cooperation and decrease heteronomy.
To the former, this is "democratisation", to the latter, something else
(1)
Regarding the "pro-democracy" vs "anti-democracy" split within social anarchism...
I used to be much more firmly in the former camp, but lately, I've come around to more of a "Can't we all get along?" position.
To at least some extent, it's a semantic issue, and to the extent it's not ...
I'm not sure what to call this idea, though.
It's certainly still communist in the older anarchist sense of being marketless and moneyless and non-rivalrous.
Though I think we should ditch the c word because. It tends to confuse more often than it informs
There would still be some degree of decentralised planning by networks of voluntary associations.
But I think having a more stigmergy-reliant system would take some of the strain off of this process.
The basic idea is that we set things up in such a way that the actions of individuals using things in the economy provide feedback to the system itself on how things get distributed.
Like a "free market", but without money or inter-enterprise competition.
For example, more fully incorporating the idea of stigmergy into our models of how coordination of goods and services should be handled.
Replace price signals with "use signals" and place the focus less on planning (however decentralist) and more on the distributed actions of individuals.
re: A future social anarchist economic system
While I haven't changed with regard to wanting a future economy that's stateless, marketless, and moneyless ...
I think we need to move beyond the old idea of how this will look. There's actually a few things that can be learned from market anarchists.
Calling all anarchist/libertarian socialist academics.
There is work being done right now to create the editorial board for a scholarly journal focusing on anarchist/libertarian socialist political science and philosophy. A university associated publisher is already arranged.
You could say that it's just a faster version of Wikipedia, but you can't ask Wikipedia how well at geodesic dome would protect against various universal movie monsters and have it answer in a completely straight manner
Yeah, it's good once you learn how to use it in a certain way.
● Watch out for hallucinations
● Ask for sources
● Try to ignore how sycophantic it can be ("That's such a thoughtful observation!")
Plus, most of the discourse about generative AI bots "stealing" information reeks of intellectual property apologia.
I don't like the corporations that control them either, but the technology itself, I think, could be more useful than not in the right hands
While I know that my side of the political divide tends to be more distrustful and oppositional than not towards generative AI, I have to say that I personally find ChatGPT really helpful as an autistic person
It's nice having an AI to pester with inane questions instead of bothering real people
I like to think that I have a 900-page book in me somewhere outlining such a system.
But at present, I'm just too goddamn lazy to get around to it.
SAMRA (Social Anarchist Metatheory of Reality and Agency) alas lies dormant in my various scattered scribblings around the house