#they could use something else but they don't want to lose profits by throwing away expired product | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

maxwell-grant · 3 years

Note

I hope you don't mind me dropping asks on you every day? Anyways, a general question on modern-day attempts at using existing Pulp Heroes; do you think there is value in setting such tales in the modern day, rather than being period pieces? And if one does do so, do you think the best approach is to go full setting update, or to somehow translate the characters into the modern day, or to go the Legacy route?

I eagerly look forward to answering all kinds of questions, so don’t hesitate to send any my way!. Any feedback or excuse I get to go off on a subject is extremely appreciated.

Okay so on to your question:

...Man, that really seems like the billion dollar question when it comes to the pulp heroes, isn’t it? The one at least that every conversation regarding adapting these characters, giving them reboots or new stories, seems to inevitably get stuck on: Should these characters be left as is, or modernized? Is there any point to trying to modernize them when often, at least in the public view, the only thing that separates them from being diet superheroes is their time period? Can these characters even survive as anything other than historical footnotes if they don’t move past the trappings of time holding them back? I’ve been very firmly on both sides of the question at different points and I think every answer inevitably brings up solutions and problems of it’s own.

For the moment, I’m going to start by saying that it’s something of a case by case basis. For example, The Scarlet Pimpernel is a timeless archetype, but one who’s specific characterization and history is so tied up to it’s time period that it’s far better to just reimagine the Pimpernel into a different character set in a different time, than to try and remove the Blakeneys from their time period, likewise with characters who cross into historical fantasy like Conan or western characters, where they have such strongly defined settings and playgrounds that you’d be losing much by removing them from it.

But on the other hand, you have characters like The Phantom, or The Avenger, who very clearly could exist at just about any point in time and don’t have any specific complications holding them to the 30s (in fact The Phantom was arguably designed for this, being he kickstarted the whole legacy superhero concept). A lot of the times, people seem to think or insist that certain pulp characters cannot be separated from their time periods, even when they were well on their way to doing so before some unfortunate cancellation. The Shadow, for example. Gibson had no problems updating the character’s adventures to the 60s for the Belmont series, and if The Shadow had maintained the kind of continuous publication that Batman and Superman had, I have no doubt whatsoever that nobody would even peg him as a character that belongs to the 30s and the 30s only, even if a lot of important aspects of his character are tied up in 30s America and The Great War and whatnot.

To try and streamline this response into something more general, I’m going to state that, yes, I do think it’s a case by case basis where some characters don’t work as well outside their time periods, and others should have left them ages ago, but in general? I think most of the pulp heroes would stand to benefit much more from being set, not just in modern times, but outside of time. Or at least, outside of a specific time period being something that defines and entraps them. Pretty much none of these characters, outside of historical fantasy examples like Conan or characters whose genres are locked into specific past time periods like cowboys, were intended to be period pieces, and yet that’s what they became, because time has been extremely cruel to the pulp heroes in many ways.

To bring up superheroes briefly, while I maintain that I think the real secret to making pulp heroes work and achieve success again is to distance them from superheroes, or at least the popular blockbuster superheroes, as much as possible, the superheroes have been around running the show for a while now and experimenting a lot as an inescapable facet of pop culture that's worked out monstrously well so far,nso clearly there’s a lot to learn there. The superheroes by and large belong in shared universes held tight by copyright where the weight of accumulating timelines inevitably forces them to either undergo reboots every couple of years, or endure constant quiet retcons snipping away at continuity so the cohesive “Superhero Universes” can function. But there’s no such thing as some big “Pulp Hero Universe” existing anywhere near the same capacity, there’s works gesturing to the idea like the Wold Newton Universe and LOEG and Dynamite’s shared author works largely scrapped together from separate sources all drifting apart, and most of these characters have largely fallen through the cracks of copyright law and into outright non-existence, or are halfway there. Very few modern instances of "cinematic universes" outside of the MCU work, so what we do instead is go the opposite route, closer to DC's "throw anything at the wall to see what sticks" approach.

What I’m getting to is, I could flip through the pages of Jess Nevins’s Encyclopedia of Pulp Heroes, pick about 3 or 5 random characters, put them in a story regardless of whatever time period they used to be a part of, and make something out of it, without anyone stopping to question “Hey, hold up, why is Joel Saber not on Victorian England? Why are Uirassu and Tom Shark in a loving relationship when they don’t even belong in the same decade? Why did you turn Allan Crystal into a talking sparrow? You are betraying the source material, these characters don’t work outside of it”. Because nobody has any idea who those guys are, they might as well be just original names I made up (I didn't, btw), and nobody has any reason to care, they will only care if they read good, engaging stories with strong characterizations that give them a reason to be invested. And if achieving that requires ditching adherence to the source material (which doesn’t even exist anymore for at least a third of these characters), I cannot see that as a bad thing.

He's nowhere near the ballpark of pulp heroes but I'm going to bring up King Arthur as an example because he’s been on my mind today.

All of these, and countless others, are King Arthur. I’m no expert in Arthuriana, but from what I’ve gathered, I’d make a pretty good guess that one of the main reasons why King Arthur has been able to endure so strongly, and have so many variations that we have an entire area of study dedicated just to untangling those messes we call Arthuriana, has less to do with his historical or mythological importance (you hardly see that many stories about Cú Chulainn), but because the lore and imagery and events surrounding King Arthur have so utterly transcended the source material that people still dispute what the source material even was, or if he was a real person, or if he was created by the Welsh and stolen by Brits, and etc, and because he's completely free for any writers and artists to mold and use to anything they see fit.

King Arthur is not so much a character as much as he’s a sandbox that literally anyone can play in and reshape as they see fit, with no shortage of existing events and characters and magical items that you can treat as either essential staples, or guidelines and suggestions at best. I have three separate ideas for King Arthur as a big shark man in a greaser outfit who yields an oversized hair comb with fishhooks attached as Excalibur, one where he’s a monstrous dragon who sleeps in the ruin of his former kingdom guarding the only remaining memory of Guinevere left, and one where he’s a disembodied consciousness inside a giant mechanical bear. I could pick any of these and make a story out of them, or insert these into a story, any time I want, and nobody could stop me.

Point is, I think a lot, even most, of the pulp heroes would benefit from having some kind of “no-holds-barred, just do anything you want out of whatever you find interesting about the original” approach, a lot more so than the superheroes already do, because if there’s a single group of characters nowadays that best embodies an “anything goes” approach, a group that is almost entirely in public domain nowadays save for it’s biggest icons and therefore is already available for people to take and spin any way they want, it’s the pulp heroes. These characters have been in stasis for so long, or all but faded into nothingbbut mere footnotes in encyclopedia or records in libraries not even available online, and sometimes not even that. Most of their fanbases have largely died off and they are nowhere near close to gaining new ones, and our changing media tastes call for contrasts as much as it calls for profit. No sensible person would invest in most of these properties as they stand now, which is precisely what ultimately gives them the freedom to be anything at the conceptual stage. The only thing that really, really holds them back is time, which, again, has really not been kind to them. So why adhere to it? Screw time and whatever power it’s long held over these characters, let’s get weird with it.

So if I have to choose between “full setting update, translating the characters to modern day, or the Legacy route”, all three of which are perfectly viable depending on the character, I think the best option, generally speaking, is full setting update, if only because the setting should never be the main priority in the first place. The setting, like everything else, is there to serve the story and the author’s needs and wants, and I’m of the opinion that the setting should always primarily exist in service of the characters, as my writing and my favorite writings are all character centered above all else.

I think putting the pulp heroes in radically different time periods and settings could even yield interesting results. Genndy Tartakovsky’s Primal stars a caveman Conan/Tarzan type protagonist interacting with dinosaurs, Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta is a Shadow-esque character set loose in a dystopian future, Grendel is the Fantomas of 1980s New York, and so on. The precedent is there and I think it can be taken much further.

Really I think a lot of the problems and arguments that have arisen over the years in regards to adapting the pulp heroes often result of people overthinking things, lord knows I do enough of that all the time. I really think it’s just something that only seems impossible because it hasn’t really been done yet. Of course, in regards to The Shadow I obviously have a whole different text as to whether I’d want him to be adapted or not, but in general, my ultimate response to what you asked is just do whatever you think is gonna make the story better and the characters more interesting. A.K.A, do whatever you want.

8 notes · View notes

lokaneiscanon · 5 years

Text

Mighty Thor in Thor: Love and Thunder rant

Seeing Natalie Portman returning to reprise her role as Jane Foster, nevertheless wielding Mjolnir, finally getting the treatment this character deserves, was surreal to say the least. I had just started reading Lords of Midgard, the 8th issue of Mighty Thor (2015 - 2018), and had fallen in love already. But I didn't suspect at all that Taika Waititi would pull this card in Thor: Love and Thunder, considering Jane was barely mentioned in Ragnarok. The news about my favorite actress portraying one of my favorite characters coming out of the blue - you can imagine the excitement. Alas, I quickly remembered what the fandom thought of that comic (at least on tumblr) and imagined it now growing tenfold, cuz not everyone in the MCU fandom reads comics but pretty much everyone wants to watch another Thor movie. And yes, many fans weren't ready for this step, still recovering from Sam Wilson getting the shield in Endgame. Which is completely fine. We're not obligated to like everything Marvel throws in our faces, we're allowed to criticize and express our opinion on the internet or wherever. What is not okay is mindlessly hating, and even worse - using false facts to support said opinion.

I have seen some people using the argument that it is one of Marvel's worst selling comics. Which has already been proven wrong by multiple sites, including Comichron, just Google it, as I did myself. I read multiple posts, ones saying how good Jane is doing as Thor in sales, others disproving this, so I checked for myself the numbers at the site mentioned above month by month to be sure. The comic truly had its downfalls as the story progressed but in my opinion it's normal for the 1st issue to have more sales than the 21st. If we compare it to Unworthy Thor, which started running a bit later and followed the now unworthy Odinson, the data shows the latter had more sales. But then again, while Might Thor was at its 17th issue, Unworthy Thor was at its 2nd. Also, they later crossed paths, shared comic issues, it's fair to say they go hand in hand and Jason Aaron, the author, probably doesn't want us to compare them, as they complete and compliment each other's stories. Still I decided to check the comic that made Thor unworthy in the first place - Thor: God of Thunder (2012 - 2014), which seemed to me more "comparable" to Might Thor (2015 - 2018). *I keep putting the years it was being released so as to not be confused with previous Mighty Thor issues, whole Odinson was still Thor, please bear with me* So yes, the numbers were pretty close, but from what I saw, Mighty Thor had the upper hand if we compare first issue to first issue and so on. (In defense of Odinson, we have to take into account that this data is only from the US and does not include digital sales. Also, he's been around since the 50s. We could argue Jane was a breath of fresh air that some Marvel fans were indeed ready for. As a non-American, and also a person without a hint of knowledge in economics I cannot take into account inflation and whatever else has prevented or enabled Americans to get their hands on the comics or has affected prizes through the years. Bear that in mind.) Moreover, from what I saw on Comichron, both comics had much competition - God of thunder was released along with Avengers vs the X-men, the Uncanny X-men, pretty popular at the time, and the Goddess of Thunder faced Civil War 2 and DC Universe Rebirth (yes, DC is in the game too), also dominating with tremendous sales for the longest time. Yet I stick with my original statement - both Thors are valid and shouldn't be put against one another regardless of profit. Because at the end of the day what will matter the most is the story. And boy, what a story it is.

Now, I haven't read the Thor: God of Thunder, but as I was doing research I found one very well written summary and explanation of Thor's arc and his becoming unworthy and I will post a link below, because I honestly feel I wouldn't be doing this comic a favor by describing it without having read it. Which I plan to do in the future, tbh. It's a fantastic prelude to the Mighty Thor (2015 - 2018) that I've come to love. First, I'd like to ask you all to stop hating on the comic without having read it first. It doesn't make any sense and being petty for the sake of being petty won't benefit neither you, nor anyone, really. Now, about the comic itself - the art is magnificent. It's just gorgeous. Mighty Thor isn't , thank all the gods, sexualized, she is pretty buffed and generally looks like a warrior. As it is with the other characters, I dare say. The background truly captures the essence of every world Jane finds herself on. Action scenes are just the right amount and balanced with dialogue well. On a side note, it's pretty funny to read/listen to in your head the Shakespearean English cursive in which Jane talks as Thor. The plot line branches beyond this comic, starting from Thor: God of Thunder and leading to the War of Realms. And it is elaborately built in every issue. You don't know what to expect, yet it makes sense when it happens. Which leads me to the characterizations. My God, what a treat Loki is in this. Clearly, my opinion is kinda biased, since he's my favorite character, but you never know which side he's on. What his motivations are. And it just feels so... Loki. His writing is brilliant. Almost makes me forget what the MCU did to him. Also, he gets some daddy time with Laufey (not as kinky as I make it sound). Frigga/Freyja is just as awesome as in the MCU, even more, at least in the comics she calls Odin out on his shit, who btw is I guess an asshole in every version and universe. Malekith, the main villain, is unbearably despicable, I want to tear every page he is on. He really was mishandled in the Dark World, if you want some true action with the dark elves, you are welcome to enjoy. I saved the best for the end - Jane Foster/ Might Thor. Now, if you think Dr. Foster spends her time boasting about her worthiness and how Odinson is just called Thor, but she is Mighty Thor, you are horribly wrong. She just... does her job. Because the hammer chose her. Because there's no one else to do so. That's it. If you think there's some feminism involved, yes, there sure is, but it certainly isn't the reason Jane became Thor in the first place. It was not the creators going SJW because it's trendy, as such a mindset is honestly offensive to any descent creator with any self respect, but a well thought out story arc, which, I repeat, you have to read the comic to understand. Jane is not at all whiny about the hate she gets in-universe, not only from foes like Odin and who-not, but from Shield and generally people whose asses she's saving. Her having cancer is not something they pulled to provoke sympathy and make her look like a victim - on the contrary, she is a damn hero and a victor. I don't want to give out spoilers, but her being Thor is actually a giant sacrifice that no one really appreciates (both in-universe and in the fandom). She is not Thor to prove she can be, or just to prove "women can be heroes" - she doesn't have to. She is simply needed by the realms and so she does her job, even though she is called a thief, persecuted and generally hated. All that matters is that the hammer finds her worthy - the beauty and simplicity of that fact you will find out, for the last time, if you read the comic.

I'm not making you read the comic or watch Thor: Love and Thunder. I myself don't know what to make of this film yet because there's barely any information about it. I only know it will be based on the comic so that's a reason for my hopes to be up already. On the other hand, since I didn't like Loki's characterization in Ragnarok, I'm not sure what to expect from Taika. There are valid reasons to not like the idea of Jane returning to the MCU as Thor, which you are entitled to. However, reasons such as "why does everything have to be political these days" are not. Because if I had to make a list of everything politically related in the MCU, it would take forever. Steve Rogers kills nazis is the most blatant example. Make of it what you want. But I think we're far enough into the 21st century to realize art and real life are not that separable. It's undeniable that art affects people and that is to say, people everywhere. And they all have different opinions and aren't gonna like everything media is offering to them. And I wish I could simply tell you not to watch the movie but I'm a Marvel fan too and I understand that I can't just take away Thor from you because I want Mighty Thor as well. But none of us can stop Marvel from producing it. So, to quote an image I saw recently, I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people. Let the rest of the fandom enjoy what they want to enjoy. Yes, ik I can play around with the tags and avoid posts that unnerve me but, for example, I'm looking up Mighty Thor fanart, which obviously isn't anti-Mighty Thor, yet I get attacked in the comics for anticipating a movie that doesn't even have a full cast yet. Ik I'm not asking for too much when I wish to get the same internet experience (not only tumblr, but also insta, YouTube, Twitter, any site) as the Thor Odison fans, for example. I'm aware I cannot stop all the toxic fans and the trolls but I hope this post has inspired those of you who simply can't envision Jane as Thor, or don't like Natalie Portman in the role, or whatever eles personal preference that doesn't involve political issues and isn't harmful to the community, not to attack every post on your dash with hate. The movie is called LOVE and Thunder, for God's sake. (on a side note, is a franchise that is too afraid to show LGBT characters for more than 1 minute so as to not lose profit from China, THAT politically correct)

Anyway, that was a veeeery long rant, sorry to whoever reads this but, like, please, I put effort into this, hoping this time around I won't be the only positive reviewer of a movie, like I was with Solo: a Star Wars story (yes, I'm still bitter about this), which was boycotted for no apparent reason but was a decent film in reality, and I'm only bringing it up because it has a similar experience to Love and Thunder for getting hate before even being released. I'm not defending a billion dollar company that flopped in box office once, I'm defending the viewer's right to media they are interested in. If you don't like the character, remember - that's your opinion, not a fact that the character sucks. Kudos.

Not very easy to navigate, I advice you to do the research month by month individually for comics you'd like to compare. Also, if you happen to find more reliable data, pls say so in the comments.

Here you have the summary and explanation of the greatness of Thor: God of Thunder, Jesus, I'll go bankrupt if I buy this one too.

youtube

Yes, I want to end the sales dispute once and for all, I'm tired of seeing it on my dash. This guy probably explains it better than I did.

@awesomejenlawrence you said you'd like to read this and I delivered

#natalie portman #mighty thor #marvel #mcu #mcu phase 4 #jane foster #thor odinson #loki #taika waititi #chris hemsworth #thor love and thunder #thor god of thunder #jason aaron #my thoughts #my rants #positivemindset #lovewins

3 notes · View notes

eliminativism · 7 years

Note

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask for your opinion on this: takimag(.)com/article/top_10_trump_myths_gavin_mcinnes#axzz4WT8GdY44

McInnes is a partisan provocateur, like Milo Yannopoulos. I wouldn’t take what he writes too seriously.

We are already beyond McCarthyism - the alt-rightists and neo-nationalists on tumblr are so far gone that they cannot read a single thing in the press they don’t like without mocking it as fake news. They are worse than feminists - and I say that as someone who has an anti-feminist with very radical anti-feminist stances for three years. You basically cannot get more anti-feminist than I am.

And I consider feminists more redeemable than people like McInnes lately.

The truth is that while the press has problems, you cannot throw everything out of the window without checking. But the “parallel media”, aka right-wing news blogs, have established themselves among their audience to provide any kind of lazy copy-pasting to show “the left media” is wrong, regardless of whether it’s accurate, as long as it reeinforces the biases of their audience. You can find whole networks right-wing blogs for anything, with vast databases of sources they built up - for the world being flat, for chemtrails being used to poison the population, that the world is cooling down and global warming is a hoax, that Noah’s flood was real, that Trump is a reasonable individual.

I have spoken against such falsehoods repeatedly, and always I have found people to be more stubborn and hostile than even a rabbid SJW could be - often from people who would love to point out how ridiculous SJWs are.

Simple fallacy: Just because one other position is wrong does not allow you to conclude your position is right.

Feminism and the new right follows the same human tendencies: The tendencies to see patterns, to see themselves as victims and deserving of more than they have etc.

The “left-wing media” is basically the right-wing’s patriarchy. Lot’s of plausible sounding platitudes with some enacdotal evidence here and there, but nothing overarching.

But maybe back to your link.

What McInnes does here is that he specifically picks a few things he can challenge to some degree and then makes the blatant statement that he is always right and the “left” is always wrong. Let’s break it down.

1) This statement by Trump has been blown out of proportion by the media, but it is also not what is really important about Trump’s assumed sexual crimes.

He has been accused of rape by three different women - a business partner, his ex-wife and a thriteen year old.

The case of the thirteen year old occurred in the 90s in connection with a party of Jeffrey Epstein, who is a good friend of Trump - a convicted sex criminal who has an investment company which is offering financial product specifically for billionaires.

Trump was never convicted - he did donate a large sum of money to the persecutor who was supposed to handle the case of the 13 year old and the case was abbandoned - so one cannot say that he is guilty.

But considering that the neo-nationalists have been going crazy over Pizza-Gate, I wonder why the story about Epstein’s parties, in which the candidates for an underage model agency of his attended, and who, according to the organiser, had to give blowjobs to Epstein’s friends, including Trump, to get “a better chance” at a modeling career, would not spark the same interest. Hmmmmmmmmmm....

https://de.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits

The case had a hearing on 16th of decembre. Maybe it is just a story of someone who hopes to get money, maybe there’s more to it. We’ll have to see what comes of it.

2) Maybe, maybe not. It would fit to Trump’s personality to mock someone for that, but I wouldn’t say that it shows a disdain for the disabled. He might have just considered it some strange antics of the reporter, without even thinking about a disability. But Trump’s dedicated enemies interpreted it in the most unflattering way possible.

3) “ I’ve been an entrepreneur my whole life. You’re pretty much looking at 12 failures for every successful venture“

This is ridiculous and shows that McInness is out of touch or lying.

Maybe such ventures with many bancruptcies is typical for a very small group of millionaire investors who are working in an American business climate where money is fast and loose.

But that has nothing to do with the normal economy. I have relatives who are entrepreneurs and business-owners, but all middle class, not upper class. Not one of them has ever grown bankrupt once. And those who do grow bankrupt in this field never recuperate - they have their debts to pay off for their whole life and hope their children don’t inherit the debts. And even if they recover, people are skeptical of making business with them further on.

Trump belongs to a financial class which is called “locusts”. They don't lose money from going bankrupt, they profit from going bankrupt. They never pay their debts - you know who stays with the debts? The small businesses Trump had contracts with, which he never payed and which he will get away with for never paying, because he can delay the court cases longer than small-businesses who barely have enough to continue to exist.

4) Everyone outsorces production to other countries when it makes sense.

That Trump does it is not the deal, the ridiculousness comes from Trump’s claim that he will bring the jobs back to America.

Yeah, he can... if the Americans are paid e.g. Chinese wages. Which will be an interesting enterprise with the costs of living in the US.

There is no system of encouragement behind outsourcing - with the additional cost of transport and the difficulty of running a business at a country you don’t speak the language of, and the often unstable legal situation in these low-wage countries, everything already speaks against producing there - but companies still do it because it makes economic sense. And it has been going on for so long that it shows it works.

Trump is not a hypocrit, he’s just a retard, like everyone else who believes that one can reverse that trend.

I mean, either that, or a Stalinist.

You would have to bring so much government control into businesses that you would basically disable capitalism if you wanted to dictate where a company can produce how much of what - and sell it for what price, if you want to keep it affordable.

I didn’t know Trump’s supporters would love to live on a kolchos, but surprises with them never end.

5) I never heard this, and I cannot say anything. Basically, if you are rich, it is easy for you to find ways to get richer. There are various ways to do that - legal and moral, or the Trump way. Both happens among that elite class.

6) This is Trump toeing the line to dehumanisation of immigrants just like the European neo-nationalists do with Muslims - they are all rapists, all criminals, it would be a better world if we would get rid of them etc. Oh, not “literally” all of them, but you know, you have to break some eggs to make an omelette...

This is just typical right-wing populism which is as old as modern politics itself. It’s not even something specific to Trump, it’s something every right-wing party does to some degree and it has been a beloved point of the Tea-Party movement, which considted of the most embarrasing American country hicks the world was ever displeased to witness on the news. McInness’ apologetics for it are laughable.

7) Well, Roe vs Wade is being attacked by many Trump fans.

I don’t really think Trump himself cares much. Trump just wants to make money - that’s what his presidency is about. He doesnt want you to bring the truth, he wants you to buy the newspapers his best friends own instead of those his friends don’t own.

If he could open a restaurant with dead fetus burgers, he would. The thing is that Trump is in bed with people who have ties to conservatism who would be interested in anti-abortion legislation. That ties in to the Republican senate keeping the surpeme court seat open for months without considering any candidate Obama suggested. Trump will suggest someone the rich American conservative establishment likes, so he lick their assholes and they can lick his.

8) Ties in to 7). If we look at Trump’s staff, he personally doesn't care about black vs brown vs white. He will just bring in anyone who will help him make money. He would appoint Göbbels for his talent of speaking to the press and he would butter up Malcolm X’s asshole if it would give him more support from the black vote.

Trump does not care about politics, he cares about $$$. He is completely amoral in that regard. And that’s how people who do care about polirics will be able to rise to political positions which would never be considered in any way fit for politics in a Western democracy. And Trump does not care what they will suggest in terms of social policies. That’s not his thing. If someone wants to build concentration camps with gas chambers on American soil, Trump would just ask “How does that sell? Do the approval numbers look good for that?” If the answer is positive, he would not care about the action itself.

That’s one of the big points about the campaign and the press coverage - people try to pin things like being against Jews of LGBT people on Trump, but it’s not true. Trump does not care. The thing is, Trump would also not care about the reverse. That is what Trump can be attacked about. He himself may not support bigotry, but if bigots would make him successful, they will be his best friends in the White House. That is the danger of Trump - not his personal views, but that he simply does not care. His lack of personal views is the danger.

9) Basically see 8). Trump will bend and break existing laws if he thinks it’s a thing that saying makes him popular. Immigration, right of assylum for the prosecuted - doesn’t matter, if it makes his voter base uncomfortable.

That’s exactly the same with Europe, Europe’s new right and England’s Brexit.

People have a “feeling” that something is wrong, they find some structure they pin their nebulous feelings to and then get agitated. Is there causality behind it? Doesn’t matter. Someone, somewhere is conspiring against me, and in my feeling of powerlessness I have to ruin it for everyone else. As I said, it’s why feminism is attractive to people with low self-esteem and a short-sighted view of society. The EU is the European right’s patriarchy or the post-marxist’s burgeouisie - people I have never met with some planned agenda against me that keeps me down, and though I cannot point to evidence or causality, enough people are talking about it that there must be something to it.

10) I have no idea what point McInness is trying to make here. If Trump wants to build a wall, he can. He cannot make the governent of Mexico pay for it. If America makes budget cuts to pay for the wall, then America makes budget cuts to pay for the wall. Has nothing to do with the government of Mexico. McInness is just rambling about a red herring.

#Anonymous #Ask

2 notes · View notes