You're being way, way overly dramatic here. A few people on an internet forum going "lol fuck off NYT" over some film critic's bad take is not an "attack on the free press".
lol
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Maureen Dowd of the NYT thinks that Parasite is about "con artists who invade an elegant house and wreak chaos" and that Trump should empathize
- Thread starter RastaMentality
- Start date
I would respectfully say that your way of reading and reproducing scientific output is, while not dangerous, then at least susceptible to immense leaps in logic. The article by the team of junior researchers makes no claims about notions of evil and is not particularly committed to the essentialism of genetics, rather it claims a need for "realism about heritability and commitment to the importance of parenting are not mutually exclusive; indeed one cannot be understood without reference to the other."
If you wish to claim no more than what the article posits, you should use propositions similar to the research - this does not include leaps such as "some (implied seems to be that we are talking statistically significant amount of) people are born inherently evil"... the article makes zero claims in this direction... I would advice that if you want to understand where research stands at this point that you read the editorial to the issue where said article is published: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-019-09952-z
My reading of some posts in this thread is a incessant need to claim that there is no aspect of *capitalism* that governs people towards certain behavior such as greed, racism and exploitation, that this would look the same across any social political system and thus we should not bother to try to imagine something better. This is quite the claim considering what the foundational thinkers behind capitalism claim. It is also a rather weak denial of capitalism as politics and ideology.
You are free to make such claims but clamoring for "natural" science to prop up capitalism is, frankly a bit pathetic and above all it bends science for political purpose.
Interestingly this position displayed by our liberal friends also contains within it the seeds of rejection of some of the most fundamental tenets of liberalism. Because why bother to indicate the right of the individual to shape his own destiny, regardless of any authority which might seek to limit his possibilities if that authority is his DNA?
Last edited:
There is no evidence to support this claim. The research you've linked here does not make this claim, you clearly did not understand it at all. The logical endpoint of the argument you are making is eugenics, especially considering you tied in mental illness to your 'inherently evil' claim.
I agree that no media deserves inherent trust. I don't think my trust of the NYT is inherent, but earned. The NYT is a bastion of objective news, though, in so far as any journalistic outlet can be a bastion of objective news. There will always be bias, as newspapers are staffed by people and bias is inherent to people. Truly "objective news" is probably not possible, because news is reported and it's reported by people who will always be clouded by something subjective -- our own brains, viewpoints, those of their colleagues, etc -- but I think that when it comes to major publishers, the NYT is much a bastion of objective news as any agency can be. Perhaps not "the most objective," maybe that award goes to like ... the CSPAN feed or something, but certainly a bastion of objectivity insofar as there can be objectivity in the press. I don't think it should be protected from criticism, but I think there's a willingness to unfairly criticize or extend criticism from the thing that should be criticized -- Maureen Dowd tweets a fairly reductive, milquetoast criticism of Donald Trump being a parasite on the White House -- and extending that throughout the whole publication: The New York Times has been poisoned because Maureen Dowd tweeted a reductive, milquetoast criticism of Donald Trump.
In the age that we're in today, I think that defending free press is more broad or less precise than simply objecting to government interference in press. Trump attacks free press, but as far as we know, he hasn't really interfered in the publication of articles from the Washington Post or New York Times (outside the typical power that a president has in this area, Trump attacks the press and his Administration tries to thwart reporting, but as far as we know, the Trump Admin is not really able to interfere in publishing decisions at prominent outlets anymore so than previous administrations), but I don't think it's arguable that Trump has not waged a war against the free press. Attacking the press goes further than just interfering with the editorial process, regimes that are inclined to authoritarianism in countries like Hungrary, Russia, and elsewhere, have eroded free press in those countries not just by having official "independent" newspapers take the line of government agencies, but primarily by spreading distrust against independent press and then also by flooding the airwaves with other content to suppress independent press.
Yet, if we're being technical and sticking to simply the words in the Bill of Rights, then Trump has not eroded the freedom of the press because the first amendment simply states that "Congress shall make no law (...) abridging the freedom (...) of the press." I'd argue that as a concept "freedom of the press" should not be so strictly interpretted as "Congress making a law abridging the freedom of the press." Donald Trump tweeting that the NYT or WaPo are "Enemies of the people," and then protecting Saudi Arabia from criticism after it assassinates a prominent journalist for the WaPo, and then Trump criticizing the Washington Post for it's own journalist being assassinated by an ally of Trump's is not -- strictly -- "congress making a law that abridges freedom of the press," but I think that'd be the wrong reading of what "freedom of the press" should be in a liberal society.
The Atlantic has a terrific article this month about 'The Disinformation War' of 2020, and while this disinformation campaign isn't strictly the Trump Admin interfering in the editorial decisions of major publishers, I'd still think that it should be considered an attack on free press:
The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President
How new technologies and techniques pioneered by dictators will shape the 2020 election
www.theatlantic.com
It finishes with this quote from Hannah Arendt:
Garry Kasparov has picked this line up in most of his books, usually when talking about Putin or a demagogue like Victor Orban in Hungary, that suppression of free press isn't just the government, its surrogates, or politicians telling you what is true, but more often, by convincing you that nothing is true.
Last edited:
I can believe someone saying that the NYT's reporting is good. I don't read it, because I don't live in New York and therefore much of what they cover is not worth my subscription money, but I've seen enough of their opinion section to know the opinion section is absolutely fucking trash. I mean, as long as they have creepos like fucking Douthat on their staff they're going to suck. At least David Brooks's paeans in favor of the status quo are so bland as to be ignorable.
If you think people are inherently evil you don't have to feel bad about opposing Medicare For All
Still not close to being the worst take the NYT published about Parasite -
www.nytimes.com
Why Does Rage Define ‘Parasite’ and Other Popular East Asian Movies? (Published 2019)
Many thriller and horror films from Japan, China and South Korea reveal a complicated relationship between those societies and the ancient tenets of Confucianism.
I can't believe people are missing how Mrs Kim says the parks are nice only because they can afford to be, then immediately is cruel to the old housekeeper.
The movie is an indictment of capitalism, but if you think the Kims are completely sympathetic you missed a lot of the movie. For one thing, they didn't have to go so far as oust the old housekeeper to "survive," by that point it was greed.
People seem to get the critique of the Parks and miss the critique of the Kims. The Kims themselves are capitalists - - Mr Kim had a failed business.
There are no saints in this movie, which is a huge point of it - the system corrupts all.
The movie is an indictment of capitalism, but if you think the Kims are completely sympathetic you missed a lot of the movie. For one thing, they didn't have to go so far as oust the old housekeeper to "survive," by that point it was greed.
People seem to get the critique of the Parks and miss the critique of the Kims. The Kims themselves are capitalists - - Mr Kim had a failed business.
There are no saints in this movie, which is a huge point of it - the system corrupts all.
It is kind of amazing that we are getting legitimate unfiltered masks-off eugenics rhetoric in here but it's not that surprising (there's an old quote about what you find when you scratch a liberal that I think is somewhat relevant; I bet you've heard it).
I believe that human behavior is inherently contextual and results from the environment that people exist in. This shouldn't at all be surprising (and I know the last time I posted to that effect I got a couple 'who doesn't believe this??' replies -- here they are, folks, the people who don't believe it), and as an aside it's also one of the reasons that I never got into Chomsky, because he definitely gets into a notion of fundamental human nature in his philosophy of language that I simply do not believe in.
I saw the movie, and yeah, that's what it's about.
I mean, it's not about a friendly dog catcher who reconciles with his highschool girlfriend after bumping into her at a Salsa class.
Just because the film has deeper meaning doesn't mean the plot summary is automatically invalid.
I mean, it's not about a friendly dog catcher who reconciles with his highschool girlfriend after bumping into her at a Salsa class.
Just because the film has deeper meaning doesn't mean the plot summary is automatically invalid.
Yeah actually everyone is acting real smart but in film school you learn how to dissociate the subject and the theme of a movie!
Well said. Even though I think the people here who post dumb shit like "NYT is trash" are coming from a good place, I cannot think of an instance when thinking in such extremities, even when rallying behind a good cause, has not yielded unfortunate results.
"A dedicated man spends a thousand years searching for his lost ring and some hairy midgets melt it down for laughs."
— Maureen Dowd's review of Lord of the Rings
— Maureen Dowd's review of Lord of the Rings
That's not what they're saying though. Their point is that what is going on here is indicative of a problem that transcends the boundaries of this forum and is becoming an increasingly influential current on the left.
Last edited:
Notice this more and more as well. It would help if people knew how to have discussions not full of hyperbole and extremes. As I do associate with weirdo libertarians and some conservatives, this type of discourse does feel familiar sadly. We didn't end up at "fake news" overnight. If all you have to say is shit like "fuck the New York Times" and the "New York Times is trash" with no additional context then you're making a poor argument and sharing an unhelpful opinion.
Last edited:
no it isn't. what is this thread and why do half the people in it have a bizarro definition of eugenics.
eugenics is specifically about selectively breeding humans to create better people - encouraging "superior" people to have children, discouraging or banning "inferior" people from having children. eugenics was a way people wanted to address the "problem" of "inferior people". believing genetics influences behavior is not eugenics any more than believing that heritable genetic diseases exist is eugenics.
(and no, i'm not going to defend the notion that some people are "born evil" because that phrasing seems questionable)
Saying some people are born inclined to evil is eugenics! It's some phrenology crime bone shit!
it's literally not eugenics. words have meanings! eugenics is about selective breeding in humans! the idea that a person could be "born inclined to evil" is a separate concept, one that inspired eugenicists for sure but it is not, itself, eugenics. you're talking about behavioral genetics or some shit.
Criminals were sterilised in the belief they'd beget immoral offspring in the heyday of eugenics with a mind to achieve this selective breeding in humans!
Margaret Sanger argued not only should the disabled be sterilised but the illiterate, criminals and unemployed be placed in work camps or sterilised!
tf is up with the eugenics talk/defense in here?
Is this just normal discourse here now?
Some ppl need to readjust their masks already.
Is this just normal discourse here now?
Some ppl need to readjust their masks already.
yes, STERILIZED. that's what I've been saying! someone who thinks some people may be born inclined to be assholes/sociopaths/what-have-you is not advocating eugenics unless they think we should put in place measures to stop those people from being born or reproducing. it's not eugenics without the selective breeding component because selective breeding is the core of eugenics!
Socialism being normalized here (look at any US poll with Sanders on it) has got some people fucking shook clearly. I can't say I'm here for it because the espousing of eugenics is obviously horrifying but the silver lining is fairly straightforward at least, that the cultural shift is inevitable.
I have genuinely no idea what you're arguing if not eugenics, then, unless you think "sterilization" here refers to the process of getting someone clean enough to perform surgery
Just because you don't advocate sterilisation doesn't make it not eugenics! It's like saying it's not bigotry unless you use a slur!
It was literally a whole field of "science" that employed various techniques, Sangers being some of the most radical, to improve the genetic health of the population on the presumption people are born with inherent genetic traits that define their virtues and morality.
What does the definite definition of eugenics matter when he's advocating that those with personality disorders are predisposed towards evil?
Saw a tweet from a Spanish paper about how the movie shows the conditions in which the "real-life parasites of Korea live" smh
The man is literally is faced with a choice between helping his daughter live and killing his boss, and chooses to kill his boss. The movie didn't know what the fuck it was trying to say, it just knew it really wanted to say something and lost itself in the trying.
By getting her to a hospital, like every rational person would have done in such a scenario. As is the norm for critically injured people. As is depicted explicitly in the movie itself with people imploring him to get onto it. Are you planning to play some stupid "he knew she was gone" bullshit?
It's a literal reading of the plot, but I think people are giving Parasite too much credit. The intended villain in the film is capitalism, not either of the families; capitalism brings them into conflict and propagates the inequities that creates conflict, and gives members of the underclass false aspirations to lull them into complacency.
Would Maureen Dowd miss that subtext? I have no doubt.
Would Maureen Dowd miss that subtext? I have no doubt.
Yes because she got fatally stabbed in the chest and they couldn't stop the bleeding.
She literally tells him to stop pushing on her it's just hurting and it's too late!
She literally tells him to stop pushing on her it's just hurting and it's too late!
What movie did you watch
User Banned (3 Days): Trolling Over Multiple Posts; Prior Warning for Antagonizing Other Users
What world do you live in where people pronounce themselves dead of knife wounds and people think fuck, well lets just not bother trying to save them, or getting them to the hospital? The way to convey such a scene would have been to have her actually die, and for people to have known she had died, instead of imploring him to help her. But that's not what happened in the movie.
When they're stabbed in the chest, probably in the heart? The real one.
so how was mr. park supposed to get her to the hospital. he doesn't have a car. that they need to use the subway is a major part of the movie. obviously the ambulance was too late. he doesn't have anyone like da-hye to take care of her. you're saying he should've just walked her all the way to one like... a rational person would??
That is for a doctor to determine at a hospital, as the movie makes clear itself with the rational actors attempting just that.
No it isn't, everyone in that scene, including her, knew she was dead in minutes
It's a fictional tale, it's not a documentary, they are expecting the audience to know the girl is going to die