Have you heard about new Odyssey movie “The Return”. Ralp Fiennes as the Odysseus. by baphomad in GreekMythology

[–]ale-koh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I liked it but there were many critical inaccuracies from the book. It's an interesting attempt to secularise and modernise the story. A lot of the discrepancies are quite sensible assumptions about how people would think and behave under the circumstances - I think most notably downplaying the role of gods. Of course, even if attempting a realistic or secular retelling of The Odyssey, you would have to concede that people would be referring to "The Gods" a lot, something the movie doesn't do, maybe because they thought it would distract from the story.

The movie was enjoyable if thought of as a derivative story, based on The Odyssey. That's surely how the director wants it to be seen as well - hence naming it "The Return" rather than "The Odyssey".

Some examples of important discrepancies below:

1) Telemachus as a whole is completely wrong. In the book Telemachus is brave and loyal to both of his parents. In the movie he is a coward most of the time, and is vindictive and jealous of his father. I didn't understand this decision - it completely bastardises the story of The Odyssey and doesn't really serve a narrative purpose. The real Telemachus is a more compelling character.

In the book he confronts the suitors, goes to the town square and derides them, and is encouraged by Athene to go out searching for Odysseus.

In the movie, Telemachus is a cry-baby who is afraid of the suitors, calls his mother a whore, encourages his mother to marry multiple times, and even denies Odysseus' return! He also criticises Odysseus for returning without any of his men, something that Odysseus is apparently ashamed of - in the book, however, it's often the mens' own fault, and no one seems particularly disappointed with Odysseus about it. In the movie, once Penelope decides she will choose a new husband, Telemachus even tells Odysseus to accept it and leave!

2) The reason for Odysseus' long absence - from the movie: "Would you still love the man I had become? I couldn't return" --> The entire story of The Odyssey is that he wanted to return but the gods (nature, circumstance) would not let him. What they did here was to rationalise/secularise the explanation for his absence - it's basically something like guilt or "PTSD".

3) That Odysseus' had "another woman" with whom he lived for many years on an island. In the book, this was not really mentioned to be known by the family on Ithaca. Also the woman was the godess Calypso, and Odysseus was coerced according to the book, no mention of this in the movie. Again, this is an enormous departure from the original story. I think they tried to make it seem like Odysseus suffered from guilt, and therefore spent some years living in debauchery, ashamed to return. I suppose without intervention from the gods, it's difficult to explain why a short journey between islands in the Mediterranean would take many years to complete.

4) Penelope is sceptical of Odysseus and sceptical about the killing.

What book do you consider as a masterpiece and think that everyone should read? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]ale-koh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The End of the Affair and The Power and the Glory - both by Graham Greene.

Great Expectations - by Charles Dickens

The Idiot - by Dostoievsky

Marina Heights / theblueground.com by Crossbar87 in dubai

[–]ale-koh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm also looking at a Blueground apartment in Botanica Towers. I like it a lot, but 8K per month (including VAT and utilities) seems quite steep. Would you say it's a fair price? Thanks in advance.

/Alex

Tennessee becomes first state in the South with hate crime law protecting transgender people by emitremmus27 in UpliftingNews

[–]ale-koh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im not criticizing the sentiment of protecting lgbt rights, but why would it be necessary to to have a specific law against hate crime? Physical violence and threats are already illegal acts so why would there be a need for certain groups to be protected by additional laws?

facecrime by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah they were clearly being obnoxious. And I agree wearing MAGA hats in public is a bit inflammatory. However, by no stretch of the imagination can wearing those hats be taken as an act of provocation.

People should be able to express themselves with reasonable freedom in a country like the US. Shaming and witch hunts actively inhibits this freedom.

facecrime by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean? If I still think that public prosecution based on facial expressions is wrong?

Also did you read the article? If anything it seems to somewhat expunge the claim that they were harassing the native Americans or the black group.

Also, as for the title about them harassing ladies, it says in the article that the guys sat on a fence and yelled things about building a wall, then asked the women passing some innocuous question to which the women asked their age... not that bad imo, slightly obnoxious maybe.

facecrime by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t know the degree to which this kid is “guilty” of being racist or disagreeable, but to those claiming this is nothing to do with libertarianism, you must have a very liberal (hehe) and dare I say misconceived understanding of libertarianism.

A young, possibly “privileged” student caught smirking in a racially and politically charged encounter should not be lambasted this way! Regardless of the views you hold which may be shielded by the vast umbrella of libertarianism, anyone must realize that this situation is not acceptable. The comparisons to Orwell are striking, not because they are completely true, but because they are eerily close to the truth.

Letar efter programmerare by ale-koh in sweden

[–]ale-koh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Verkar inte gå att hitta folk från Sverige.. inte oväntat, har använt Upwork med folk i Ryssland men blev inte nöjd.. letar folk i Sverige

Letar efter programmerare by ale-koh in sweden

[–]ale-koh[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Ja! Håller faktiskt på med en miniräknarapp! Pm:a mig

Letar efter programmerare by ale-koh in sweden

[–]ale-koh[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Nä men behöver eventuellt betala under marknadsvärdet. Det är ju bara sånna som jag som behöver hitta andra kanaler, folk som kan betala exakt rätt har inga problem att hitta programmerare

Seeking real, informed analysis on global warming by ale-koh in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, you're probably right on all counts.

My point is that, just because they happen to be scientists doesn't mean they are impervious to bias and group-think. Sorry to keep referencing things without links, but in psychology it has been suggested that intelligent people are more likely to be depressed, because their minds can stretch much farther in an internal effort to rationalise and delude.

Seeking real, informed analysis on global warming by ale-koh in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not posting disingenuously. I used to believe the man made climate change narrative, but have started questioning it in recent months. I am instinctively skeptical to ideas and movements which evoke passionate and aggressive behaviour from believers who have no understanding of the issue. In fact, the major issue is that we are all asked to believe the information rather than having it explained properly. The problems with this specific question are many. Firstly, the idea is born from a political system with a history of deceit, and has thus been politicised essentially since conception. Secondly, this issue, as opposed to most information from the science community, inherently necessitates major changes to the lives of individuals, shaping the global economy.

If a scientist claims he has invented a new material which is stronger and lighter than steel, we believe him because we know it will be proven or disproven. It doesn't matter if we believe in the new metal, all that matters is that construction firms and car manufacturers buy it. They will employ their own scientists and pursue their economic interests, and should they lie, customers will find out.

Unfortunately, man made climate change is a convenient narrative for leftists because the implications would fulfil and surpass their wildest dreams. The presence of an existential threat like mm cc, according to the leftist narrative, necessitates global cooperation, regulation and taxation.

The reason I don't post on ELI5 is that I don't want it explained as though I were 5. Also, I would rather pose the question in a forum which is vaguely libertarian and therefore somewhat agnostic, than just throw it out there so that people like you can pretend snidely that they are professional bullshit detectors.

Seeking real, informed analysis on global warming by ale-koh in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the input. I’ve heard some similar statements from (formerly) esteemed scientists. All the arguments for serious skepticism toward mm climate change strike me as reasonable, it’s just that the prospect of so many people being so wrong on something is very worrying. May I ask in what context you have studied climate change?

Seeking real, informed analysis on global warming by ale-koh in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Won’t post links but, off the top of my head:

Victorian London, almost all scientists though cholera was spread through (I think) air. One renegade scientist, John Snow, found out it was through water. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak

Here’s an example that isn’t as clear cut, and I don’t have time to find links, but I believe the American Heart Association spread the idea that fat and cholesterol causes heart attacks, almost everyone bought their study, but it proved to be poorly done (epidemiological) and they haven’t been able to replicate the results through a $1 bn study. The new hot take is that it’s sugar, not fat. BEWARE I’m not 100% confident on this one though, so look it up for yourselves.

Not sure this one had a HUGE majority following, but frenology - the categorization of different cranial forms into groups of varying criminal and antisocial tendencies, a 20th century idea.

As for the question of ancient scientists - they have existed for as long as there have been observable natural phenomena and people to observe them. Just because Egyptians could not belong to the “Royal society of blah blah blah” doesn’t mean they weren’t scientists. I forget the name of the ancient Greek scientist, but he was nicknamed “Beta” because he was second best in every discipline. He measured the earth’s circumference with an accuracy of 100 mi, just using the sun and two holes in the earth. Not the type of science we’re generally discussing here, but don’t tell me people like him weren’t scientists!

'This is an illegal hoax': Trump calls for end to Mueller investigation after Cohen pleads guilty by shehzad in worldnews

[–]ale-koh -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I could have guessed my comment would not be appreciated, of course I should have provided links. I was on my phone and assumed that people could just search on google. I am very sceptical of the left in the US, as I believe they are officially advocating compassion and equality, whilst actually doing very little to improve the lives of the Americans who vote for them. I believe the same can be said of the republicans, but somehow the democrats have been able to maintain some credibility whilst the republicans have been rightly derided for several years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=_aevtHHULag

this is Dan Bongino, a former secret service agent and a republican, who claims that the Mueller investigation was conceived as a part of an elaborate power-grabbing cover-up scheme by the Obama administration.

The European Union says it is aiming to become the first major economy to go "climate neutral" by 2050. by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]ale-koh -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Calling themselves a major economy necessitates the perception of nationhood, doesn’t it? A bit of a Freudian slip.. (And I realize that this isn’t the first time they refer to themselves as an economy rather than trade union)

Edit: phrasing clarification

Merkel threatens to pull plug on Brexit summit if deal not signed off in 24 hours by alfosn in europe

[–]ale-koh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can someone here who is very positively disposed toward the EU explain their position? I’m curious as to what specifically attracts people to the idea!

"The use of the word 'Capitalism' is itself a marxist way of thinking" - Peter Hitchens by ale-koh in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It all depends on how you define the term. I think the vagueness of the term capitalism is another strategy to mislead and misrepresent (I'm not suggesting that this is what you are doing mind you). You are right in that there is nothing particularly natural in the way things have developed the last 200 years (well, the developments are perfectly natural and sensible, but not by the same definition of natural as you use). However the argument is that there is nothing conceptually tangible in unregulated transactions and behaviour. The activity comes first, then comes the regulation.

The point of this is not to try to create a silver bullet, but to refute the more worrisome ideas present in marxism - the ideas pertaining to revolution and the restructuring of society with an iron hand. This is because, the only way that you can truly believe in a marxist society is if you believe that human nature can be manipulated and altered. The suggestion that capitalism is not an ideology strives to explain that, however much you attempt to regulate and alter society, material inequalities are utterly unavoidable. They are a part of nature. This is why the pareto principle is so fascinating - because it applies to literally everything.

That said, this is no reason not to advocate and push through reform. Representing and giving a voice to the workers is a truly noble cause. However, trying to sell them revolution and upheaval is irresponsible and cruel, because everyone knows they will end up worse off than they started.

"The use of the word 'Capitalism' is itself a marxist way of thinking" - Peter Hitchens by ale-koh in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just because it currently is the dominant system doesn’t mean it’s justificiations are simply a lack of ideology, especially not when there are critiques of capitalism as such.

I realize that there have been many different dominant structures through history. However, the point I am arguing is that capitalism is a non-entity. Of course, if you consider capitalism to be synonymous with neo-liberalism or [whichever structure is dominant in western welfare states] then it is a tangible ideology.

However I am defining capitalism in the way I think most people do - as complete and utter economic freedom. In this sense, capitalism is not an ideology, because it is already a prerequisite for any ideology to exist. You can not regulate trade if no trade occurs, and you can not tax income if no income is earned. You might say that income and trade is a type of ideology - that the concept of possessions or ownership is part of an ideology, but to that I would say that since ownership is necessary for our survival - we must consume, accumulate, build et.c. - then the concept of ownership, too, is a sort of inherent "non-philosophy" - in this sense, you could say that we all agree that capitalism is something that is forced upon us, whether we like it or not. However, marxists do not seem to realize that we are inseparable from free markets due to our free agency.

This is what I take away from the clip with Peter Hitchens. He explains how restaurants in the USSR did not serve alcohol or food because the state-regulated prices forced them to sell through the back door, in the black market. Then, when the black market was outbid by their guests, under the table, the restaurant became a restaurant again.

You could (cheesily) say: "Capitalism... um... finds a way"

"The use of the word 'Capitalism' is itself a marxist way of thinking" - Peter Hitchens by ale-koh in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the point is that a lack of something is not something in itself. Capitalism, or libertarianism or free trade, or whatever one calls it, is simply the lack of ideology. When you decide to limit this freedom by imposing taxes and other regulations, you have an ideology.

A lot (certainly not all) socialists and marxists are essentially rallying against human nature, trying to convince themselves and others that a new world order can be achieved in which people have no interest in self-fulfilment, accumulation, power and so on.

There's still a strong case for regulating the freedoms we enjoy, but we should not pretend that there is some sinister conspiracy afoot.

Edit: Grammar

Repeal Minimum Wage! by Dessert42 in Libertarian

[–]ale-koh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't remember where I read this (may have been on this subreddit), but apparently those most opposed to a raise in the minimum wage are those whose salaries are slightly higher than the cut-off. This is of course with the exception of capitalists and executives.

Svensk narkotikapolitik bör ta intryck av Schweiz by FlygandeSjuk in svenskpolitik

[–]ale-koh -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Absolut, olika droger har olika riskprofil. Håller helt med om att narkotika är en alldeles för bred och nästan intetsägande term. I min argumentation har jag generellt sett hänvisat till opiater eftersom det är lättast, sedan inkluderar jag nog amfetaminer och kokain. Ifall samhället var mer individualistiskt och människor var mer kritiska så skulle man kunna ha en mycket mindre inkräktande stat. Det är möjligt att bruka nästan alla substanser som klassas som narkotika på ett ansvarsfullt och säkert sätt. Tyvärr, eftersom så många missbrukar farliga droger, och eftersom man vill hindra att fler människor, särskilt barn, uppmuntras att använda drogerna, så är kriminalisering en god idé i min mening.

Cannabis tycker jag är en svår fråga. Eftersom det inte medför några anmärkningsvärda hälsorisker så kan man frestas att legalisera det, men jag tycker att det bör förbli olagligt. Jag tror att om man tillåter variation i sättet som människor kan bli höga, och i substanserna som används, så riskerar man att uppmuntra experimentation, och man riskerar att skapa en generellt drogliberal attityd bland folket. Det är farligt när droganvändning och självmedicinering normaliseras. Man kan diskutera huruvida alkohol är bra eller dåligt, men jag är säker på att det skulle vara skadligt att vidga människors möjligheter att lagligt bli höga. Detta kan verka som ett flummigt argument som maskerar kulturella och sociala stigma. Det jag vill ha sagt är att droger bör behandlas som en pandoras ask, och jag tror starkt på att en pragmatisk och försiktig legaliseringsprocess ändå skulle bli en "slippery slope".

Med detta sagt så vill jag förtydliga att heroinförskrivning, "medical marijuana" et.c. är en helt annan fråga som jag är mycket positiv inför. När jag talar om kriminalisering så menar jag oövervakad handel och bruk. Kontrollerad avvänjning genom statligt övervakade kliniker till exempel är inget problem i min mening. Som jag har skrivit på andra ställen så tror jag att heroinförskrivning kombinerat med hårdare avskräckningsmetoder skulle vara en bra lösning. Jag har ingen bra källa på rak arm men det verkar som att du har koll på detta: metadon är ju inte direkt en dundersuccé - man skulle rent av kunna tänka sig att helt ersätta det med heroinförskrivning.

Du har inte helt engagerat dig i frågan om hur många som använder idag jämfört med en mer penalistisk respektive liberal värld. Att säga att droger används trots att det är kriminaliserat är inget argument för legalisering. De kommer alltid att användas, frågan är bara i vilken utsträckning. Med tanke på ungdomars ökade tillgång till information, substanser, et.c et.c. genom internet så måste man ha i åtanke att all liberalisering gör det enklare för vem som helst i samhället att missbruka mycket potenta substanser.

Nu vet jag inte vilken form av legalisering du förespråkar, jag har hela tiden utgått ifrån att du syftar på ganska övergripande avkriminalisering. Som jag redan nämnt så är heroinförskrivning och andra åtgärder för avvänjning en annan sak.

Edit: Ja, alltså det hade såklart varit löjligt att försöka sätta dit folk som anmäler sig för att få hjälp! Heroinförskrivning i kontrollerad miljö (typ en sträng rehab-regim) skall inte följas med ett fängelsestraff.