internet was a mistake

Brendan O’Neil's argument sounds like a “No True Scotman” fallacy to me. All the poeple you disagree with within the left cannot just be swept under the rug. that’s not the way “adults” solve their problems (this guy gave me some boomer vibes with his “disavowal of your own adulthood”). 

Moreover he gave me “all lives matter” vibes when he talked about “hyper-racial consciousness” as if social class and race had nothing in common and both existed in a vacuum. of course leftist are racially-conscious since race and social class are intertwined and almost indistinguishable in our western societies. because of colonial history and systematic racism, people of colour are most likely working- to middle-class people. whereas white people have more social mobility. therefore the racial language. of course, white people can be poor as well but when people say “white men” they don’t necessarily assume that all white men are well-off landlors - at least, I hope so. 

I’m really disapointed by this video because on one hand, Bret Weinstein says something interesting but that I already knew. of course, the left can be weaponised by people who wish anything but equality. but we already know that those people exist since we call them SJWs and they’re used as straw men by the right to discredit everything slightly progressive.on the other hand, Brendan O’Neil just use the most regressive leftists as a scapegoat. At the end of the day, nobody suggests true solutions to “fix” the left, so i guess, i have to do Leftist Jesus’ job. 

1.LET’S EDUCATE OUR PEOPLE 

All the Jordan Petersons and Ben Shapiros out there  aren’t as clever as they make themselves out to be. Only a little bit of fact checking and research are required to debunk their argumentation which generally consist of incomplete information and shophistries. the problem is that the Leftists in front of them haven’t done the necessary research and are gagged by everything those con men say. because, most of the time, the only rebuttal that the leftist in front of them find is “pEoPlE dO wHaT tHeY wAnT”. embarrassing. 

2. CANCEL CULTURE DOES NOT WORK or STOP BEING AS (AND EVEN MORE) REACTIONNARY AS THE SUPPOSED REACTIONNARY PEOPLE YOU’RE CRITICISING 

I’m sick of seeing twitter on fire every time a random tiktoker says or does something insensitive. the world knows that what they're doing is morally questionable but they know it as well. by attacking them everytime they open their mouth we don’t necessarily educate their public (who will always find a way to justify everything their faves do) but just give them a ridiculously big amount of clout they don’t deserve. there are people out there who weaponise drama to keep on being relevant on social medias (i wanted to name them at first but i don’t want to give them free publicity. if you know, you know). i’m tipically the kind of person does not have tiktok but knows everything about Tony Lopez, the Hype House and friends just because of all the drama surrounding them. 

you guys must learn NOT to react to everything insensitive you witness because those are epiphenomena; the pit of the iceberg, to put it simply. racism does not only consist of lynching and racist slurs. sexism does not only consist of slut shaming and hypersexualisation. racism and sexism are social organisations which affect our everyday life and our worldview, so calling out a single racist man on his racism won’t solve the bigger problem. if you want to take actions, you maybe should focus on attention on politics in your country over rants on twitter.

3.HOW TO DEAL WITH THE TROLLS 

have you ever felt intellectuallt drained after a fruitless debates with your conservative relatives or friends? it’s may be due to the fact that you were debating with a “troll”: a person who doesn’t want to win the debate with facts and logic but just want to have the last word by all means. even if that means insulting the opponent, playing dumb or flat out lying. moreover people use dogwhistles (words with vague meanings which pander to a specific audience without provoking opposition. ex: when in the political discourse words such as “muslims” and “immigrants” are just code words for “brown people”, “aliens”).those dog whistle allow people to play dumb and use bad faith arguments even though the world knows what they meant in the first place (ex: when they use the world “muslim” to, in fact, say “alien” but respond to the accusations of bigotry by saying “islam is not a race, muslim people come in all shapes and forms” which is correct). 

to counter those kinds of sophistries i opt for a Socrates-esque method of argumentation. to put it simply, if they play dumb, i’ll play dumber. instead of calling them out on their blatant racism, islamophobia, sexism etc. I just ask them A LOT OF questions (as if I was the most naive person on earth) to the point that they say out loud what they meant in the first place. 

for example, when people fight against black Ariel in the guise of scientifical accuracy ask them if they want to imply that mermaids in general are “scientifically accurate” (spoiler:there aren’t). the black Ariel opponent will, then, come to the conclusion, that scientifical accuracy was not their main concern. at this point, you can ask them in the most innocent way possible, if during all this time race has always been their one and  only concern. and that’s the moment they begin to insult you because they run out of argument. 

at no moment during the deabte you have an active role of accusater (because that’s the moment people take a defensive stance and take things to personnaly); you just lead people into saying what they actually had in mind. 

for now on, I hope your debates with the right will be more fun and less intellectually draining. I also hope you will actually fight for equality instead of weaponising a movement for your own interests. 

I was having a chat with my friend Nelly and Cornelia, when Cornelia took an Avengers pencil case out of her bag. When I saw it I asked them whether they watched the last Thor film that was released recently. Nelly told me that she hadn’t watched it yet, but Celia didn’t answer me right away. It seemed like I had given her a piece of bad news. Cornelia is indeed a big comics fan, and she replied that she thinks that Marvel Studios have ‘Suicide Squad-ized’ the Thor saga.

She meant to say that this latest film has an 80’s inspired aesthetic and his more humorous than the last two films because of current trends and the success of recent action comedy films such as “Suicide Squad” and “Deadpool”. She prefers darker films such as “Watchmen”, which she thinks feature “real” superheroes. To make matters worse, she is a huge fan of Thor and in her opinion this film turned one of the sternest and most authoritative heroes of Marvel’s universe into a ‘dickhead’. She finally went on to say that if this film didn’t deal with Thor it would have probably been a good film”.

I acknowledge that Cornelia has a point here. The 80’s inspired posters may be magnificent but it seems to me that this is quite an inappropriate style for Thor’s universe. It is obvious how inappropriate it is to liken an eternal deity to a specific era. Moreover this idea wasn’t very developed in my opinion. There is a scene with a ‘Space Mountain’-like set _the one in which Thor is summoned by the master of Sakaar _ and two two other scenes with ‘Immigrant Song’ by Led Zeppelin playing background _although this a 70’s song and not an 80’s song_and that’s it. I also acknowledge that I found Thor to be quite dumb in this film as well.

HOWEVER, THE QUALITY OF AN ADAPTATION DOESN’T DEPEND ON IT’S FIDELITY TO THE ORIGINAL WORK ONLY. This is why I had such a passionate argument with Cornelia and I will now try to convince you of my argument as well. I didn’t introduce my argumentation by a question. I wrote a declarative sentence in capital letters instead on purpose. I don’t believe that the more similar an adaptation is in comparison to the original, the better it is. I know that is totally wrong.

On one hand I will talk about adaptations in general, and on the other hand I’m going to be talking about ‘Thor Ragnarök’ more especially.

First and foremost, adaptations which are quite similar to the original work they’re based on, aren’t necessarily good. I would go as far as to say that they are unsurprisingly bad. Let’s take for example the Japanese live action film adaptation of ‘Death Note’ released in 2006. I’m a big fan of ‘Death Note’, and yet I felt like I was attending a bad cosplay contest when watching this film. Almost everything is exactly like in the manga, but in a lower quality.

More generally, such adaptations carry no ambitions, but to satisfy fans. These kind of films can be successful and praised by the fans in question, but they are hardly good or even interesting. Besides, Cornelia complained that Thor’s universe has been softened up in order to be more mainstream. I personally think that turning mature work into a family-friendly film can be a good thing. Comics such as “Men In Black” and “The Mask” are indeed particularly dark in comparison to their adaptation. In these cases, modifications were made in the adaptation to enable a larger public to discover a work that they would have never known otherwise. For example, children who watched “The Mask” back in the 90’s must be all grown up now, and thus, can read the original work without being traumatised. However, if the film “The Mask” was as dark as the comics, it is most likely that most of these children wouldn’t have known either the film or the comics.

Finally, I think, we must asses the quality of an adaptation like we would for a ‘regular’ film; so, in this case, not taking into consideration the fidelity to the original work on which it’s based.

Now that I have debunked a host of myths regarding adaptations, let’s go back to our main subject: the latest Thor film released recently.

Thor fans like Cornelia have complained that the ‘classic’ Thor has been destroyed. Yes he has been, but only in order to make way for a “better, stronger (and faster)” Thor. His famous Mjöllnir was indeed smashed into pieces within the first minutes of the film. Spectators and Thor himself couldn’t but wonder what he would do without this fearsome and powerful weapon of his. I also thought that he would make someone fix it. However, Odin asked her son if he was “the god of hammers”. I thought it was a funny punchline at first, but in retrospect, I realised that what Odin said was really wise. The whole film indeed lays the stress on the fact that Thor isn’t ‘a superhero with a magical hammer’ but rather the god of thunder! There are indeed plenty of scenes in which other characters call Thor the ‘lord of thunder’ or something similar, but each time, he has to correct them and say again and again that he is the ‘GOD of thunder’. In this film, his divine nature is particularly emphasized. And thus, he can be almighty with or without the Mjöllnir. There are indeed two scenes in which ‘Immigrant Song’ by Led Zeppelin is playing in the background. Both are epic scenes in which Thor defeats all his enemies one by one. However, in one scene he has the Mjöllnir, and in the second (at the end of the film) his Mjöllnir is missing.

Another source of disagreement between people who liked the film and those who didn’t is humour. Thor is indeed particularly funny because of his clumsiness. However, the scenes featuring Heimdall were always serious. He is indeed the character who remind us that Asgard is in danger.

In retrospect, we indeed realise that this film isn’t funny as it seems. In fact, this film deals with the descent of a fallen king. Firstly, he has lost his attributes. No more Mjöllnir and golden hair.

Secondly, in retrospect, we realise that he technically lost the fight against Hela. He defeated her because he summoned Surtur. This decision may have helped Thor and his people, but it caused the dreaded Rganarök, which resulted in the destruction of Asgard. Thus, thirdly, he literally lost his kingdom.

Despite that, Thor knew how to overcome. In other words, he’s a king arisen from the ashes. I indeed think that his new haircut isn’t a matter of style only. I acknowledge that he got his hair cut just because a creepy old man wanted him to do so. However in many societies such as the Japanese, people cut their hair when they contemplate a fresh start in their life. Although it wasn’t desired in Thor’s case, this haircut symbolised the fresh start he was taking with his people since Asgard and the ‘classic’ Thor disappeared. Secondly, in the very last scene of the film, Thor is represented with majesty. We can indeed see him him sitting on a chair, which may be made out of PVC and faux leather, but in fact represents his throne. His majesty is emphasized by the fact that he’s surrounded by his companions and all his people.