Sign In

CatBus

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
18-Aug-2011
Last activity
26-Apr-2017
Posts
5500

Post History

Post
#1069675
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

Dreamaster said:

Ouch:
http://movieweb.com/star-wars-classic-trilogy-disney-wont-alter-restore/

It was always a longshot that Lucasfilm would either turn Mike’s restoration into an official release or do their own. But Mike’s restoration still exists. Someday down the road, it may be the source for a good-quality release by an outfit specializing in public domain stuff, like Laserlight. We’ll never see it, our kids will never see it, it’s unlikely our grandkids will ever see it either–but the restoration still exists for that day.

Post
#1069542
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

SilverWook said:

Handman said:

I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.

In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).

http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/

Wow, I guess we’re closer to naming a military base after the guy than I thought.

Also, from an art history POV, the Confederate statues are mostly just mass-produced statues of the same guys over and over with different plaques underneath. They could probably destroy close to 700 statues and still have the complete set available for museums.

you think they are mass-produced?

At least a large portion are. Most were made all at once in a rush of Confederate fervor (basically when Reconstruction ended and the former Confederates wanted to signal to everyone who was in charge of their states again and not to get any ideas about things like retaining voting rights–they were intended to intimidate the nonwhite population, not to be the anachronistic larger-than-life participation trophies they are today). It’s cheaper to make one cast for multiple statues than one cast per statue. As long as you have enough different statues that there aren’t duplicates within one city, nobody will know the difference. At most, the local newspaper may run stories about how a statue had a “twin” in the town down the highway, just for local color.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1069459
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

SilverWook said:

Handman said:

I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.

In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).

http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/

Wow, I guess we’re closer to naming a military base after the guy than I thought.

Also, from an art history POV, the Confederate statues are mostly just mass-produced statues of the same guys over and over with different plaques underneath. They could probably destroy close to 700 statues and still have the complete set available for museums.

Post
#1069432
Topic
The Place to Go for Emotional Support
Time

Back to the subject of suspiciouscoffee actually reaching out and needing help…

I don’t know how much my advice is worth to you. I’m a straight old white guy, married with kids and a mortgage. And I’m atheist too. So as far a shared life experiences go, maybe not so much. But I know quite a good number of gay folk, and I’ve witnessed at least one complete nightmare trainwreck of a coming-out scenario, so maybe I have something to offer.

My advice: There’s no universally correct way to be gay. Maybe you get giddy and enjoy dancing with girls. That’s not really unheard of. Maybe you’re not a big beefy physical sports guy. That’s pretty common. But you know what? It’s also not unusual for big beefy physical sports guys to be gay too, so don’t heterofetishize that lifestyle too much. A lot of coming to terms with being gay is better described as coming to terms with being yourself. Because if you’ve got these preconceived ideas of what comes along with being gay (“but I don’t like interior design!”), you’re just going to ride the roller coaster of maybe-I-am-maybe-I’m-not a little longer. Maybe you’re gay, maybe you’re bi, maybe there’s no label for what you are. Does the label help? If not, don’t focus on that. Focus on what you think might make you happy and fulfilled. You have a better sense of that than you think.

Community is important. For a lot of people, coming out means saying goodbye to a lot of previously available folks. Church, family, friends. That’s the killer. Without a community of accepting friends, coming out is much, much harder. Find that community–and you won’t know for sure until you come out, but they’ll support you–I’m sure you have a good sense of safe spaces by now, and you should trust them. That’s kinda what we are here–the worst we can do is throw odious words at you anonymously–we’re relatively safe. But in-person safe people are needed too. Start with a new church if church is important to you. Even if you don’t buy their lefty-loosey Bible interpretations–you’re not in it for the dogma, you need the community. You’ll even have some shocking support from some quarter you’d written off. It happens. Once you’re out, the trouble doesn’t end–not by a long shot–but the anxiety, the dread, it all washes away. Slowly, but it does. You know the “It Gets Better” campaign? They’re not wrong.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1069378
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

the north started the war

April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.

Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.

I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.

Actually I called the post-Civil War mob of cop-killers and vigilantes who got a statue honoring them terrorists. The Confederacy was what I called a white supremacist uprising (who only later turned into terrorists in the form of the Klan and the losers behind this statue).

Fair enough.

The whole point of the Ft. Sumter reference was that the Confederates started shooting at the Union long before the Union ever decided to take back the South. The North likely would have attacked the South first, if they’d had that opportunity–but the Confederates simply beat them to the punch. The Confederacy unambiguously attacked first, at Ft. Sumter.

No doubt, but even though that means they literally “started the war,” in the broader sense I think it’s fair to say the Union was responsible for the conflict. In regards to Ft. Sumter, this wasn’t the South trying to take control of northern territory. It was in SC and if the Union didn’t want a fight there, they would have left it.

It was federal property. Even granting the fairly tall order that secession was legal in the first place, South Carolina would still only have the authority over its own territory. They attacked a part of the Union that was completely surrounded by Confederate territory, but it was still Union territory. There is a difference between initiating a war and failing to surrender to an attacker.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1069352
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

the north started the war

April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.

Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.

I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.

Actually I called the post-Civil War mob of cop-killers and vigilantes who got a statue honoring them terrorists. The Confederacy was what I called a white supremacist uprising (who only later turned into terrorists in the form of the Klan and the losers behind this statue).

The whole point of the Ft. Sumter reference was that the Confederates started shooting at the Union long before the Union ever decided to take back the South. The North likely would have attacked the South first, if they’d had that opportunity–but the Confederates simply beat them to the punch. The Confederacy unambiguously attacked first, at Ft. Sumter.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1069333
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

You can argue that the Civil War statues shouldn’t be removed, but the statue honoring a white supremacist uprising definitely had to go.

Civil War, white supremacist uprising. You say tomato…

huh?

You say tomato, I say tomahto–it’s an old song. It means that there is no significant difference between those words.

I’m not so sure you can say there is no significant difference between a white supremacist uprising and the Civil War. I think the Civil War was bit more complicated than that.

It took a lot longer to put down than most other white supremacist uprisings, certainly. Other than that, I’m not really seeing it. Certainly if those cop killers honored by the statue in question had the military capacity of the Confederacy, I’m sure they’d have had delusions of statehood as well.

I’d try to argue this with you, but I don’t think you are going to listen.

Have it your way.

http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html

I never said the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. It definitely was about slavery, but I don’t think that it was the only thing the war was about. Certainly not everyone fighting for the south was doing it to preserve slavery. Some were doing so, because they had two options 1: fight against the union, or 2: fight again their own state, against their own cities/towns. I heard it said that is why Lee was fighting for the south, he could fight against the country or fight against his home state of Virginia, he chose to fight against the country.

In that sense, not all Germans in the Nazi army were fighting for white supremacy, only to avoid fighting their own country. Ergo, the Nazi army was not a white supremacist army?

Listen, I know lots of people’s ancestors fought for the Confederacy. My ancestors fought for the Confederacy. Don’t stop tearing the statues down because of fears for injuring my delicate southern heritage. I’m hardly having a sad that my great-great-great grandwhatever is no longer being honored for being a racist ass. If you’re doing an opinion poll of what white people with Confederate heritage think about the statues, here’s a data point to include–me: good riddance.

DominicCobb said:

the north started the war

April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1069306
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

You can argue that the Civil War statues shouldn’t be removed, but the statue honoring a white supremacist uprising definitely had to go.

Civil War, white supremacist uprising. You say tomato…

huh?

You say tomato, I say tomahto–it’s an old song. It means that there is no significant difference between those words.

I’m not so sure you can say there is no significant difference between a white supremacist uprising and the Civil War. I think the Civil War was bit more complicated than that.

It took a lot longer to put down than most other white supremacist uprisings, certainly. Other than that, I’m not really seeing it. Certainly if those cop killers honored by the statue in question had the military capacity of the Confederacy, I’m sure they’d have had delusions of statehood as well.

I’d try to argue this with you, but I don’t think you are going to listen.

Have it your way.

http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html

Post
#1069294
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

You can argue that the Civil War statues shouldn’t be removed, but the statue honoring a white supremacist uprising definitely had to go.

Civil War, white supremacist uprising. You say tomato…

huh?

You say tomato, I say tomahto–it’s an old song. It means that there is no significant difference between those words.

I’m not so sure you can say there is no significant difference between a white supremacist uprising and the Civil War. I think the Civil War was bit more complicated than that.

It took a lot longer to put down than most other white supremacist uprisings, certainly. Other than that, I’m not really seeing it. Certainly if those cop killers honored by the statue in question had the military capacity of the Confederacy, I’m sure they’d have had delusions of statehood as well.

Post
#1069278
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Handman said:

In the coming days, the city will also remove three statues of Confederate Gens. Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard and Confederate President Jefferson Davis, now that legal challenges have been overcome.

Are we trying to pretend the Civil War never happened? Robert E. Lee is probably the least offensive prominent Confederate figure. He’s nowhere near as bad as George Wallace, who actually ran for President on a white supremacy platform… in 1968. I don’t feel like these removals are really thought through.

Kids manage to learn all about the Revolutionary War without having statues of or military bases named after Benedict Arnold. I’m sure nobody will forget about the Civil War without statues to this particular batch of traitors.

Warbler said:

You can argue that the Civil War statues shouldn’t be removed, but the statue honoring a white supremacist uprising definitely had to go.

Civil War, white supremacist uprising. You say tomato…

This post has been edited.

Post
#1068508
Topic
What can and can't be changed by Disney?
Time

PTOTST in that order said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

CatBus said:

There likely will not be an official release of the Star Wars trilogy on home video until the copyrights expire and we get a good public domain release.

But who here has time to wait for the end of western civilization?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_film :

Due to the U.S. Copyright Term Extension Act, no more films will automatically enter public domain in the United States until January 1, 2019, when the copyright will expire on films released in 1923 (and in 2020 films from 1924, and so on).

Isn’t Disney the king of keeping IP’s private though? Mickey Mouse…

I wasn’t disputing at all that this would happen fairly close to when the sun explodes, just that this is how long we’ll have to wait, regardless of how long the wait is.

Post
#1068507
Topic
What can and can't be changed by Disney?
Time

SilverWook said:

CatBus said:

Possessed said:

I doubt any such thing was signed anyway

Hard to say, but regardless of that, I think the studios in general give quite a lot of deference to a film’s director (on the issue of home video releases, that is). Star Wars is hardly the only film where some shitty director’s cut is given priority over the theatrical cut. And while Lucas only directed one of the films, I think Disney will still defer to him on the whole trilogy out of some sort of misguided sense of professional respect, even if they’re not legally obligated to. I expect that will continue even after death (see the Narnia reordering fiasco, where publishers interpreted a letter where CS Lewis humors an enthusiastic fan as justification for still effing up the whole series 50 years after the man is no longer capable of being offended by their publishing choices).

There likely will not be an official release of the Star Wars trilogy on home video until the copyrights expire and we get a good public domain release.

And this is why we have fan preservations.

Post
#1068495
Topic
What can and can't be changed by Disney?
Time

Possessed said:

I doubt any such thing was signed anyway

Hard to say, but regardless of that, I think the studios in general give quite a lot of deference to a film’s director (on the issue of home video releases, that is). Star Wars is hardly the only film where some shitty director’s cut is given priority over the theatrical cut. And while Lucas only directed one of the films, I think Disney will still defer to him on the whole trilogy out of some sort of misguided sense of professional respect, even if they’re not legally obligated to. I expect that will continue even after death (see the Narnia reordering fiasco, where publishers interpreted a letter where CS Lewis humors an enthusiastic fan as justification for still effing up the whole series 50 years after the man is no longer capable of being offended by their publishing choices).

There likely will not be an official release of the Star Wars trilogy on home video until the copyrights expire and we get a good public domain release.

Post
#1068442
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/21/trump-just-admitted-his-presidency-isnt-going-well-tacitly/?utm_term=.896255e23281

The 100 day standard isn’t very fair. Ambitious goals require time. For example, at the current rate, it doesn’t seem very likely that Trump will play more golf that Obama did in his entire 8-year term for another few months.

Gotta admire the effort though.

It is super-mighty. Er, I mean yuuge. Sorry, I get those two mixed up sometimes.

Post
#1068438
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/21/trump-just-admitted-his-presidency-isnt-going-well-tacitly/?utm_term=.896255e23281

The 100 day standard isn’t very fair. Ambitious goals require time. For example, at the current rate, it doesn’t seem very likely that Trump will play more golf that Obama did in his entire 8-year term for another few months.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1068164
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

chyron8472 said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Similarly there was a common refrain that Obama created ISIS, which was equally impossible given that it happened before Obama. Does that absolve him of any blame for ISIS-related failures? Not at all, just the creation of it.

If I’m not mistaken, this reference was about the ISIL state created inside Syria. Obama waited til Damascus was obliterated before doing anything. American tax payers forked out billions of dollars to weaponize resistance fighters, those resistance fighters turned against us and took all those toys with them to Syria. That is why the claim that Obama created ISIS was used by Trump.

No. The reason why Trump claimed that Obama created ISIS is because Trump just makes up lots of random accusations, be they valid or not. You are retconning Trump’s intent by assigning reasoning that Trump was likely never even aware of at the time he said it.

Okay, I’ll back up my point if you can back up yours? Naw, I’m not like that, here is something to read. I don’t know what Trump knows or doesn’t know and when he knows it or doesn’t but if you do, good on you.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/why-is-obama-helping-isis/

Just for kicks, I followed the link. Holy cow. I didn’t know there were sites still linking to InfoWars as a “more information” source for their articles, since Alex Jones came out and said “Oh, it’s all just made up conspiracy theories for the gullible–I’m just a performance artist.” That statement, being something that actually happened, must be slow-traveling news in some circles. Apparently InfoWars is still not a red flag for whacked out unsubstantiated BS for the entire world quite yet.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1067977
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Alderaan said:

This is venturing a little off topic from refugees to illegal immigration now, but certainly the lax immigration stance of the U.S. government in the last generation or so has been one of the big factors in driving down U.S. wages and decreasing the average standard of living.

You realize that the net undocumented movement into and out of the US has been effectively zero (technically, a slight net loss) for about the past decade, right? It’s basically like the entire Obama administration was an experiment in what happens when there’s zero new illegal immigration. It’s very much like a big wall was constructed, except much cheaper and actually effective. Zero can be a big factor, though, for extremely small values of big.

The big increase in illegal immigration that was triggered a few decades back (the tail end of which lasted into this century–so your “last generation” comment could be referring to part of this) was because the Reagan administration severely tightened controls. What used to be relatively lax movement of seasonal workers back and forth got dramatically restricted, and those seasonal workers eventually had to choose which side they’d rather be stuck on–and they chose the US side. So tightening immigration policies is actually what led to the last real boom in illegal immigration in the US. Not that we don’t have people hard at work fabricating a more recent imaginary boom in illegal immigration due to an imaginary lax immigration stance.

Economists generally agree that the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy are broadly positive. This includes refugees, so perhaps the household metaphor is too simplistic.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1067803
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

@Frink:

Also:

Two forks feel tingly flipping meat.
Twin foxes fart twice for months.
Thanks for fixing that for me.

@Alderaan:

Nevermind, I failed to find common ground. The idea that IS sprang forth from a quarter-assed arms campaign and not from the long-term blistering resentment of Arab populations to their own foreign-backed oppressive regimes is just something that’s too far out there for me, as is the idea that we should think twice about accepting refugees simply because 15% or so of our population is comprised of congenital bigots who might behave badly (and still not as badly as the people the refugees are fleeing, nor much more badly than the bigots were behaving before the refugees arrived).

This post has been edited.

Post
#1067793
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Alderaan said:

The fact is that the Obama administration was right to end the Iraq War, and wrong to essentially bring 6 years of civil war to Syria.

I think it’s pretty clear we see things differently on a lot of matters, but there’s something salient here I think we can maybe agree on. I think a lot of people who supported Obama saw his anti-Iraq War stance and then were surprised by his later positions in various conflicts. The thing is, Obama is no pacifist, and never was. Nor is he a saber-rattling human-rights-defending pro-democracy militant. His opposition to Iraq was practical, not ideological: it simply didn’t make any g****mn sense to support a war that pretty much exclusively benefitted Iran and was also a terrible drag on the US. It was, in many ways, coldly calculating and utilitarian–what purpose did this war serve? If we don’t benefit, who does? If the accounts don’t add up–fuck it, he’s out.

This same cool, detached analysis led to, well, nothing much in Syria, as you said. Who would benefit from various degrees of intervention? It was hard for him to come up with a formulation where it benefitted the US. The most he could muster was attempting to order a cruise missile attack on Syrian military facilities, but because he sought permission from Congress, that also led to nothing. The only thing of consequence he really did was provide fairly meager support for refugees trying to escape that war, which only looks generous in contrast with today. But he did it only because there’s no real downside for the US to resettle Syrian refugees.

Obama “cool” wasn’t all about sunglasses, or keeping an even tone of voice. It was also cool as in calculating, both in good and bad ways.

This post has been edited.

To the top