This is adapted from a response to a post on the blog of the esteemed Ben Orlin, who is awesome and who you should all read.
The wild card when talking about cheating is that students will often be in classes they don’t want to be in, don’t care about, and will probably never make use of again. But they need a good grade in that class to get into the college they want, or even graduate at all.
Look at the whole thing from that perspective – you’re there against your will, forced to do something you don’t want to for a reason you don’t care about and that probably won’t affect your life one way or the other once you’re finished with it.
We’ve admitted now that a lot of the anti-cheating arguments are poor or only apply in rare situations, but we’re afraid to take the next step and admit that students who cheat at least sometimes have a very good reason, and little incentive NOT to. How on earth can you talk about the “morality” of cheating to a person who has essentially been blackmailed into doing whatever you want them to for an hour each day?
For a larger number of cases than we’d care to admit the only good reason not to cheat is the risk of getting caught.
This film is the first “Christian” film I’ve seen in a good long time that actually seems to be getting decent reviews.
From Rotten Tomatoes:
A hard-driving journalist, Lee Strobel was exactly where he expected to be at work: on top. His award-winning investigative reporting recently earned him a promotion to legal editor at the ChicagoTribune. But things weren’t going nearly as well at home where his wife Leslie’s newfound faith in Christ went against everything Lee believed-or didn’t believe-as an avowed atheist. Utilizing his journalistic and legal training, Lee begins a quest to debunk the claims of Christianity in order to save his crumbling marriage.
Odds that this movie promotes the false, harmful, and vile narrative that women are “naturally spiritual” and men need to be saved by their wives: Approaching 100% at the speed of light.
I know what you’re thinking. “Ghosts?” you say, “But this is Broadway. It’s, like, the gay capital of the east coast. Shouldn’t you be expecting gay crap?”
And you may be right, but this is a little different. The story:
This Friday we made a rare trip down to NYC to see the musical “Bandstand”. It was the very first day of previews for the show, so the tickets were cheap (for Broadway – 72 dollars each). The music was a sort of big band swing and the story looked fun enough, so off we went.
The show was about a group of WWII vets who formed a band and entered a contest; the winner gets into the movies. They’re good, but not good enough until a gold star wife with star power pipes joins in. Ta da. Play.
Sounds fun, right? It was, but it was actually a really, really remarkable tribute to the troops. The lead kills his buddy (the widow’s husband) in a friendly fire accident. An alcoholic in the group liberated the prisoners at Dachau. Another got in an accident that left him with brain damage. And so on – you get the drift.
This is great stuff! It’s the first thing I’ve ever seen that really goes into, and really attempts to understand (I obviously can’t speak to it’s total effectiveness, as I don’t have that experience), the plight of veterans home from the war. It doesn’t sugarcoat it, or hide from it. Cool, right?
We have one character – the sax player. He’s a bookish guy, in college for law school, and a bit of a neat freak. At one point, the lead tells him he should get a girl. He looks at him and says “Come on. I thought you were smarter than that.”
And my heart sank.
Leaving aside the other problems with this, it’s astonishing how stupid this line is. Apparently men who are smart and neat must be gay. It’s obvious! How did you not notice?
And this circa 1940’s WWII vet? What’s his reaction to this shocking revelation (a revelation, by the way, that has nothing at all to do with the tragic stories related to service all of the other vets have)? Why, it’s to ask him if he ever met anyone special!
No shock. No outrage. It causes no crisis. It’s just full support, no questions asked. Yeah, that’s the attitude tough as nails WWII vets from the 40’s would have to the revelation that a fellow band member was a pervert!
And the best part? The finale song – a wonderful song, all about the struggles and trials all of the vets had to go through since their return – reveals that, surprise, apparently the other band members all knew this too; we know this since war widow references it subtly in her lyrics.
This show was so close to something I could recommend wholeheartedly. It was a brilliant tribute to the troops with wonderful music and a great message. I’d be singing its parises to the heavens…
…But it had to virtue signal. It was a show that already had a very specific goal in mind, a point to make, and it throws in an absolutely pointless social justice talking point to…why? Prove that hey, they may be pro-vets, but don’t you dare accuse them of not being hip to the current liberal cause of the day.
It’s such a great show, and it’s such a small thing. It’s the sort of thing that immediately after the show when I bring it up the reaction from people *who agree with me* is to roll their eyes and go “Well, who cares?”
And that’s exactly *why* it’s such a big problem, and *why* it’s so disappointing.
What a shame.
Writing a post on each Miyazaki film is surely already starting to tire people out, so I’ll put my further thoughts here, where people won’t get bored reading about the same topic all over again on the Superversive site.
Okay. When I first watched “Mononoke”, I loved it. But – I thought “Spirited Away” was probably still better.
With a few hours to think about it – and, after realizing that I couldn’t stop thinking about it for hours – I think I was wrong. I think “Mononoke” is the best film of Miyazaki’s I’ve watched so far. I think it might be the best animated film period I’ve watched so far. I think it might be the best animated film – and one of the best movies, animated or otherwise – ever.
There are so many remarkable layers of depth to “Princess Mononoke”. It’s a movie that demands multiple viewings. The complexity and ingenuity of the film, from the stunning visuals to the brilliantly complex characters, practically overwhelms you.
After reading reviews, I think people miss what makes “Princess Mononoke” so brilliant – the aspect of the film that brings it to a whole other level, from great to transcendent. It’s not the moral complexity of the film, it’s not the stunning visuals, and it’s not the wildly imaginative creatures or complex and compelling characters.
It’s that the movie is superversive.
But it’s more than that. Let’s look at this from a more detached perspective. Imagine I’m telling you about this great book I read, but it’s no ordinary book. There are no real good guys, and no real bad guys. Everybody is fighting with everyone else for various, competing reasons, none of which are necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense. Oh, and it’s super pro-environmentalist*
Think of that, detached from Miyazaki or the superversive movement. What are you actually thinking of?
You think of “Game of Thrones”. You think of ultra left-wing morally relativist claptrap, ridiculous environmentalist propaganda. No heroes? No villains? Ludicrous. Evil, even. Oh yeah, and the most obviously villainous person of the whole thing survives to the end and remains leader of her town.
Okay. Now imagine I told you all of that and then said “Oh yeah, by the way, it’s one of the most superversive books I’ve ever read in my entire life. It lifts up the human spirit and restores your faith in humanity. The environmentalist message? It’s remarkably intelligent and nuanced. The lack of heroes and villains? It just means that every man has the capacity to better themselves, and that there’s hope for the future.
The villain? Not only does she survive, but she sees the error of her ways and leads her people to a better future in harmony with her enemies. All of those people, all of those men and women with their terrible, glorious moral complexity – they all come to realize that there are opportunities for peace, to create a better world, and they strive to make that world come about.
And that’s REALLY why the movie is so brilliant It would have been so easy to make this brilliantly written, nihilistic garbage, or even to make it an epic tragedy (which also could have been brilliant)…but that would have been the easy way out. And Miyazaki NEVER takes the easy way out. The result is an experience that does more than amaze and dazzle you – it lifts up your soul. It’s superversive in the most powerful sense imaginable.
And THAT is why it’s one of the greatest movies ever made.
(Also, it doesn’t hurt that some of the dialogue, even in the dub, is SUPER AWESOME – “Now watch closely, everyone. I’m going to show you how to kill a god.” Lady Eboshi, let no one ever doubt how much of a badass you are.)
*It’s actually not at all environmentalist in the western sense of the word, but more accurately Shintoist, which doesn’t stop ignorant leftists from claiming the movie – incorrectly – as their own.
Over at the Two-Cent woman the hostess makes some comments about St. Maria Goretti, quoting St. Augustine.
It struck me in the thread that Augustine’s quotes were rather odd. I actually think the Saint was incorrect.
The Two-Cent Woman quotes him here:
St. Augustine taught this very clearly in The City of God, Chapter 18. He wrote, “…purity is a virtue of the soul…what sane man can suppose that, if his body be seized and forcibly made use of to satisfy the lust of another, he thereby loses his purity? For if purity can be thus destroyed, then assuredly purity is no virtue of the soul; nor can it be numbered among those good things by which the life is made good.” He goes on “I suppose no one is so foolish as to believe that, by this destruction of the integrity of one organ, the virgin has lost anything even of her bodily sanctity. And thus, so long as the soul keeps this firmness of purpose which sanctifies even the body, the violence done by another’s lust makes no impression on this bodily sanctity, which is preserved intact by one’s own persistent continence. ”
But the Saint is totally contradicted by Pope Pius XII:
Without warning a vicious stranger burst upon her, bent on raping her and destroying her childlike purity. In that moment of crisis she could have spoken to her Redeemer in the words of that classic, The Imitation of Christ: “Though tested and plagued by a host of misfortunes, I have no fear so long as your grace is with me. It is my strength, stronger than any adversary; it helps me and gives me guidance.” With splendid courage she surrendered herself to God and his grace and so gave her life to protect her virginity
The Pope is clear: St. Maria Goretti could have lost her virginity and her purity to a rapist. St. Augustine is wrong; virginity is a physical state that can be taken by force.
Later, Two-Cent Woman quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Another question comes to mind as well, “Is a virgin still a virgin, if she is raped against her will?” Yes, she is, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Virginity. The entry explains in the very first two sentences, “Morally, virginity signifies the reverence for bodily integrity which is suggested by a virtuous motive. Thus understood, it is common to both sexes, and may exist in a women even after bodily violation committed upon her against her will. ”
The Catholic Encyclopedia is contradicted, again, by Pope Pius XII (and it’s talk of being a virgin “morally” is just nonsense):
Never has there been a time when the palm of martyrdom was missing from the shining robes of the Spouse of Christ [the Church]. Even today in our very degraded and unclean world there are brief examples of unearthly beauty. The greatest of all triumphs is surely the one which is gained by the sacrifice of one’s life, a victory made holy by the blood-red garments of martyrdom. When, however, the martyr is a child of tender age with the natural timidity of the weaker sex such a martyrdom rises to the sublime heights of glory.
This is what happened in the case of Maria Goretti, a poor little girl and yet very wonderful. She was a Roman country maid who did not hesitate to struggle and to suffer, to shed her life’s blood and to die with heroic courage in order to keep herself pure and to preserve the lily-white flowers of her virginity.
Once again, Pius XII is clear: St. Maria Goretti was at risk of losing her purity and Virginity. It is not just a state dependent on one’s will.
I think the problem is that people are conflating pure and impure, virgin and non-virgin, and moral and immoral. To be pure, to be a virgin, is to be in a holy state.
To be raped is not a sin, but it DOES mean – horrible as it is – that one is no longer pure and no longer a virgin.
Think about how absurd this is. If Virginity and Purity are actually dependent on the Will, it is also the case that anybody who intends to have sex but is interrupted and then regains self-control is no longer a virgin and no longer pure. But that’s not true. The state is physical.
This is very difficult stuff, but we were never told it wouldn’t be. After all, Aslan is not a tame lion.
I did not like “Borderlands 2”, which I found somewhat dull (ooh, hey, a slightly bigger gun, that’ll make a difference) and after that had no desire to try the original. When Telltale announced a Borderlands game, I was very meh about it.
But I tried it out, and let me tell you, it was OUTSTANDING.
I don’t think I need to talk much about gameplay. It’s a Telltale game, meaning it’s basically a playable television show. They’ve really perfected their unique choice mechanic since episode 1 of “The Walking Dead”, and the cel-shaded graphics are as gorgeous as always. The voice acting is uniformly exceptional, especially from the always sensational Troy Baker as Rhys. The guy playing the villain (I’m not going to say who that is since it’s actually a REALLY big spoiler) is also fantastic.
But the real appeal of any Telltale game is the story, so that’s what I’ll talk about.
I’m writing this here and not on Superversive SF because “Tales” isn’t even CLOSE to superversive, which is part of the charm. Oh, there’s a moral order; it’s not nihilistic or depressing. In fact, it’s comedic, and very funny indeed. It’s just that all of the characters are terrible people.
There’s actually something oddly charming about this…I mean, the game isn’t even trying to hide it. Outside of the two robots – and even Loader Bot kills QUITE A LOT OF PEOPLE – you’re all varying degrees of terrible.
Is there any redemption for you guys? Yes, but not as much as you’d think. Is there a REAL villain to fight, someone who is obviously the bad guy here even more clearly than you are? Yes, there definitely is, which helps a lot. Even so, you can really only be called the good guys because the people you happen to be up against are either worse or ACTIVELY trying to kill you.
I mean, Rhys idolized HANDSOME JACK. That’s…not the sign of a noble person.
There’s also something charmingly low key about it all. There’s no big hero’s journey or save the world stuff going on here. You’re doing all of this because you want whatever is in the vault you’re hunting. That’s it. No other reason. At the very end you get another, stronger motivation to complete the quest, but this doesn’t come until the game is almost over – and even it isn’t something that’s going to affect anyone outside of your immediate circle of friends.
Still, the game has a surprisingly big heart to it. The characters are all likable even in spite of themselves, the story is entertaining as hell, it’s very funny, and it can even be surprisingly poignant at times. I was actually amazed at how much I liked it. If you like story-based games and aren’t adverse to hanging out with some real low-lives for awhile this is a game you really don’t want to miss.
I’m not a fan of star ratings, but this gets two thumbs way up. Highly recommended.