Trump by name......

Somebody requested this from me. Thought some of you might like it...


Film aficionados will recognise this as Steve Gutenberg in The Day After. It was an American version of the far more horrific BBC film Threads, and reportedly had a deep impact on Reagan and his thoughts about nuclear non-proliferation.

 

Interpretation of creative works aren't left only to what the intent of the person(s) who created it were going for, and they can be interpreted and used in many different ways from different perspectives. Pepe the Frog turning into the mascot for the Kek Nation and being a symbol for white supremacy to the creator's dismay is a great example. Starship Troopers is a great example too, and I've expressed why I think the creator of the movie misses his mark a bit in making it as concrete as you're expressing.

The context of the movie, without knowing or acknowledging the political message the creator meant for it, legitimizes fascism as it addresses a real external threat in the movie in an efficient and effective manner. It's a united humanity against the bugs, under fascism, in a created universe. I do not feel like the system the characters are in, within their created universe and predicament, was unacceptable at all.

Also, coming back to the real world, every system deploys artificial external threats to bolster support. It's not something unique to fascism. You can narrow that form of gaining support to an individual just wanting somebody to help them out with something they need done around the house.

 

Why are North Korea's leaders specifically threatening US bombers?

This is an interesting part of the NK background I wasn't aware of,

 

Cool, I love "what is art" discussions!

 

Meh, I thought it was pretty clear I was taking that angle from all my other posts. Apparently it wasn't and proclaiming "this is what it's about!!" still seemed relevant in response to me (even though I stated I understand and agree with the original intent of the creator).

 

It was a playful reply, not a serious one!

The debate as to the meaning of Starship Troopers, intended or perceived, is unresolvable, because it comes down to the meaning and interpretation of art, which is not a question that has an answer.

 

The Trump administration wants being gay to be a fireable offense

So now the government wants to be able fire you for being gay......

What a time to be alive.....

 

Disclaimer before i write i dont know how the U.S federal court system works nor do i know the relation to the consitution in said court and the base federal laws, the response is going to bebased on soruces etc.

Another disclaimer i am Bias against Both Vice and Buzz feed (you will see below) I am going to post the soruces as highlighted as ources in the articles. My interpritation of the law is irrleivent as i am not a lawyer nor am i in a court case, ironically thats what they are arguign about in the court and these stations have reported on.

Spoiler

Sources:
Linked from above.
Trump's DOJ says LGBTQ workers aren't protected by civil rights law

Linked from above:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-21/gop-nods-to-lgbtq-community-isnt-enough-critics-say
Trans military members told us what it’s like to be called a “burden”
http://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2017/07/Zarda-DOJ-brief.pdf
The Justice Department Just Argued Against Gay Rights In A Major Federal Case
About the EEOC: Overview

I am not looking past those sources, Buzzfeed is in general bad anyway and thats, not bias speaking, its just clickbaity and have you seen the videos? Really.

Response:
Its nothing against you to get this eout strsight away.

To begin, the right of free speecha dn relgiion applies to everyone, it gives christians rights, Atheists rights, Muslims rights etc, like somone cannot discriminate somone because they are a muslim you cannot like wise do it to a Christian. A homosexual cannot force a Christian to marry them to another Homosexual and a Christian cannot assualt or verbally attack them for being a homosexual. If you dont achknolwegde a Chirstians rights you cannot achknolwedge a Homosexual somehow has more rights than said Christian based on their Sexual orintation.

It just seems to eb they are arguing if Section VII of soemthing means Homsoexuals can tbe fired or if it doesnt, as for the details apart from thre linked they dont cite court records, so there is no imperical evidence in clear view as to waht was said in the court etc.

The U.S news source for the Vice article ha sno evidence in how the trump admistration is anti LGBT. If you achknowledge above about everyonehavingn rights, the law could be made in such a way to put too much pressure on Religious people and encroach on their right to worship their religion how they want and to follow what one they want. Revoking a law to retweek it to protect the rights of one party to get a better comprimise is not anti who ever.

In regard to the transexual thing, no comment past the Tweet he put Trump declares U.S. military can’t be “burdened” with trans people, Look for youself not touching that with a 40 meter stick. It s mute point if the policy doesnt go ahead.


My point was meant to show how VICE is a meh news service with a anti trump bias, the title is clickbaity and the way its web of sources and little direct to relivence ones doesnt help its cause, hopefully that makes some sense because i have given up mid looking. XP I do notbelievee they have acted as a indpendent reporter on that court case and have not provided suffcient evidence to support their claims in a easily followable format. Its closer to them expresing opinion like its fact. I tried to follow the sources and got annoyed at the web of sources especially to its self.

Look forward to your response or anyone elses though. If you get something good from it fine, if not fine also.

 

Donald Trump's administration just launched a bid to make being gay a sackable offence

The independent covering the same case, with pretty much the same details.

Ps please spellchecker your posts, your post is almost unreadable.

 

It was way too much to spell check, highlight doesnt work for me rememebr? ( i did some at least, obviously not enough) I didnt want to rile myself into a tangent while spell checking. XP I will get back to you about that one in the morning as i pursue the web of sources.

 

You need to fix your computer then.

 

its probably a software issue, i believe Grammarly and default are at odds with each other on this site, neither work to their full extent. Like with my Comodo i havent been arsed to reinstall it. I need a account for Grammarly to unlock all its free features and sometimes there is a dialect issue with both. and then Firefox is updating soonish and some addons become irrelevant or something i havent kept up on. Problem i dont want to deal with until it become a problem to make it impossible to use my browser.

Will at least make a token effort in the morning then. This can serve as a reminder.

 

Yeah, the mainstream narrative makes no effort to understand the North Koreans.

 

Not that this isn't bad enough, but, Gosh my very first thought was, they want to be allowed shooting gays (guess it was a mixture of language problem, fantasy going crazy and only half thinking).
It made me stare at the screen in utter shock at the first moment.

The actual thing isn't much better though.
I think it's incredible and incredibly sad, that this must even be considered to be an okay point, for firing someone.

Excuses for being lazy.
Was about time, huh?

 

Well, i mean the governemnt doesnt fire you unless you are a civil servant. I could argue a opposing view if you dont mind me repating some things from my spoiler section in un errored English. Or eliborate on the against arguments if you want, im pretty Egaltarian and dont care for one aprty gertting special treatment. Oh well, will only argue opposing view or eliborate if somone wants it, just message or quote me if you do. (dont take it the wrong way, its not going to have me breaking ToS)

Edit (from mobile) I realise that makes me look like a raging homophobe, I will eliborate if needed. XP that is not not what I mean by opposing viewpoint. My tone has just gone very direct and it might lack clarification. (Still stand by I won't break ToS by arguing and won't use a argument to break ToS)

 

There is no opposing view for firing someone for being gay - its inexcusable

 

...and then claim that special privileges for bigoted Christians are basic human rights.

 

To start with, im detailing what i dislike,the LGBT orginizations (not reflecting of people who are homosexual in them) and PDA, apart from that i dont care much either way.

I wasnt citing that one specfically, from the news article i read, its being argued as to if employers can fire them for that. The world where you can be fired for being heterosexual is probbly closer than it should be, if you keep up with a certain movement i will not mention here. There have been people fired or arrested for pretty minor things also. Your sexulaity would probably only effect working in a religious building, i mean unless they put that down as the reason they fired you or didnt hire you and you can prove it, your pretty stuck legally anyway.


This is my main point: Wanting to change the law or refuse that set drafting on a law around say Homosexual marriage does not make you a homophobe. It could literally erode the right for a religious person to refuse, that is part of their religion and they have the right to said religion. Its not a cope out either to support discrimination, you cannot force a devout relgious man who does not agree with that opinion to do it. Its special treatment if they make it manditory to do so. If freedom of religion is not supported, the non religious have no rights as much as the relgious do. If you are pretty anti state intervention, you wont support it making laws to force action by anyone same with business as well, some people dont want state to get involved or the minimim amount of intervention.

I for one dont support ones which make it mandatory to marry Homosexuals, i view it as infringing on a religious persons right to said religion. By all means, if they can find a Church to marry them they can get married.

Is that elaboration better or worse?