OutrageousEmu said:
Soviet Heavy said:
That would be Alan Moore mister Tito. Not Frank Miller. At least Moore never went insane and tried to make a shitty sequel to his magnum opus.
No, he went insane and wrote some kind of erotic fanfiction about 13 year old girls from fairytales.
Not quite, if nobody corrected this yet "Lost Girls" actually has little or no child porn involved in it at all (I own it being a fan of Mr. Moore's and none paticularly sticks out in my mind, but it's been a while since I read it). Overall he was writing an erotic graphic novel which was making a commentary on pornography, and some of the things that were touchy in it were present to make specific points.
The basic premise is that you have a bunch of ladies (who are adults) who happen to get together at the same hotel, bump into each other, talk about their sexual development, and bang a bunch of studs also lodging there and each other. These ladies are only tenatively the characters from the fairy tales, since none of that stuff ever happened, rather the basic framework of the fairytales is used to tell some pretty down to earth (if adult oriented) stories.
The kind of thing in it from when I remember is stuff like how the girl whose supposed to be Alice winds up getting together with a rich girl in school who seduces her and turns her into a lesbian kinko and takes her all over the place, but eventually gets bored with her and passes her around to her other girls/friends for favors and such and the overall effect this had on her. That entire story roughly matching some events from Alice In Wonderland, like one unpleasant experience of pretty much being given as plaything for a time to a couple of obese lesbians (who roughly coorespond to Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum) in exchange for favors to her mistress at the time... and so on.
Not everyone's cup of tea, but if you think it's erotic fanfiction involving 13 year old girls... it's not even close. It's definatly an adult work, but honestly I don't think you could ever successfully get it defined as "porn" in a legal sense given the way the work is put together, it's easily as profound overall as anything else he's produced as some things from it stuck in my mind even if it's been a while.
If your 18 (if not when you turn 18) I actually suggest reading it, just don't go into it expecting some kind of Hentai manga, because honestly... that's not really what it is.
-
At any rate, that correction aside, unlike most people here I am not left wing, and generally tend to agree with Fox news more than I disagree with it. Like anything it depends on the exact issue.
I can't really support Anonymous here, especially in drawing the line on this issue of all things. It's sort of like how I couldn't support them when it came to their defense of "Wikileaks" given the type of information being divulged through that site.
On principle I do have to agree that the business community in the US sucks. We're pretty much seeing the downside of capitalism when not enough controls have lead to a few greedy jerks ruining it for everyone else. HOWEVER, this whole "Wall Stret Protest" has turned into a giant freak show and eyesore, it's accomplishing very little other than to make a center of international finance and one of the centerpieces of the US into a giant joke, at a time when the economy is in a shamblers and we're facing major competition from other nations wanting to move a lot of what Wall Street does (and what gives the US it's power and importance) to other countries... and honestly it will be just as corrupt there.
What these protests are doing is largely harassing a lot of businessmen and traders that we actually need. The guys who are a big deal and are responsible for a lot of these problems aren't actually all that horribly inconveienced by this.
I might not agree with everything Fox News says, but it's gotten to the point where I think the whole idea of camping out on Wall Street is pretty ridiculous.
One thing I will point out is that non-violent protest only works when it involves the threat of violence or criminal action. Martin Luthor King Jr. for example was able to succeed by pretty much threatening armed insurrection, he was pretty much saying "we're going to do this peacefully, but we don't have to" before he started his movement there had been enough violence done to make a point about where things could go, and to make shows of force through "non-violent protests" viable. This wasn't quite as history tries to make it out.
Right now the guys who ARE responsible for the problems are pretty much sitting on their high horses, looking down on this from an ivory tower. They have no fear of a bunch of squatters, these people mean nothing to them, they feel they are untouchable and able to do whatever they want, fully confident in their personal security and the degree of isolation they can generally create.
See, if a bunch of people got riled up enough where they say rushed a major meeting of Citigroup executives, so angry that their private security firing into the crowd didn't stop them as they brutally massacred the movers and shakers and their private entourages... then maybe having a bunch of people showing up in numbers and hanging out to "non-violently protest" might mean something since they would have that incident in their minds as to what could happen.
It's naive to think you can make something happen by just showing up, hanging out, or waving a sign. That might be part of it at a certain point, but before that there has to be demonstrations of power and potential repercussions for not listening. The problem with today's modern left wing is that they do not "get" that, they only look at the easy parts that can be viewed positively. They tend not to look at all the left wing terrorist organizations, riots, and other things that put the iron behind those rallies. First you need to actually get some of these guys successfully, then the other guys will be ready to listen.
Don't misunderstand my point here, I'm just saying what this would take, right now this is just a giant eyesore, whether you agree with what the people stand for or not, the bottom line is that they are not in a position to accomplish anything other than make a nuisance. Even if you 100% support the message here (I personally support only about 50% of the point being made I guess), you should realize this isn't doing any good, and is actually making
the movement look like a complete joke.
That's my thoughts at any rate.
I'll also say that while I'd hate to have Anonymous after me, given how invested I am online, I am increasingly having some difficulty taking them seriously on these issues because the bigger things get, the less meaningful taking down a few websites for a while
is going to be. Now if Anonymous could seriously frag up the computers of a major news network rather than just it's public websites, that might mean something. I don't support the choice of target, but even if I did, I can't see what some DDoS attacks and black faxes or whatever is going to accomplish. In the end Fox News is going to be right on the air at their usual time, doing their usual thing.
