The "What in the fuck kind of bill is this?" Thread

TheHedonist wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

Yes. Because that was the point of the romantic interest: to titillate the male reader, and not to ultimately subvert that same fantasy by having Winston and Julia betray each other after being exposed to room 101. The point wasn't that even love cannot survive the onslaught of Big Brother, no, it was all about satisfying the male gaze.

For fuck's fake.

I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.

This. Really, layers and multiple interpretations are possible. I just think the point would have been better proven had the relationship carried a touch more verisimilitude. If I don't believe it's love, how can I believe that Big Brother succeeded in breaking it? From what I recall (please correct me if I'm misremembering) he thought she was shallow and kind of stupid, and she was just bucking trends like a rebellious teenager. They had a good time with illicit sex, but I didn't see enough real emotion between them to think the the threat of rats to the face was enough to make anyone betray their One True Love or anything.

Anyway, as I alluded to, I read this ten or so years ago when I was going through a phase of trying to read "classics" I'd missed. (I think I managed this and Catch 22 before saying fuck it and going back to my usual reading habits.) My specific memories are fuzzy at best, and all I'm working from are the general impressions it left on me. I freely concede that I may have forgotten some serious points of the book.

Protip: Never read 1984 and Lord of the Flies back-to-back if you're 14. I was in tears by the time I got to the critical analysis section.

Euglena wrote:

Protip: Never read 1984 and Lord of the Flies back-to-back if you're 14. I was in tears by the time I got to the critical analysis section.

I did that when I was 14 and got nothing but a nausea over poor Piggy. But I also had trouble empathizing before tenth grade, I know that if I had read them just a year later I would've been a sobbing wreck. I'm glad I got through these books before I learned to read people, it hurt a lot less.

Oh man, Lord of the Flies. We had to read that book for transition year English. Fucking excellent book, you forget they're only twelve and ten.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Oh man, Lord of the Flies. We had to read that book for transition year English. Fucking excellent book, you forget they're only twelve and ten.

I thought the symbolism was way too heavy-handed.

A bit of good news: Tennessee's "Don't Say Gay" bill will not be offered up for a final vote, meaning it's effectively dead.

...Until someone inevitably rewrites it for a future legislative session...

New York Lawmakers Propose Ban on Anonymous Online Comments

Quote :

New York state lawmakers have proposed a ban on anonymous online comments.

Called the Internet Protection Act (A.8688/S.6779), the legislation would require a web site administrator to pull down anonymous comments from sites, including "social networks, blogs forums, message boards or any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages."

Yes, you read that right. Government officials in New York want people to use their real names to be obnoxious.

Quote :

A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted.

Before we wank at each other, we need to post our real names and home addresses! It's the end of the world!

Oh, wait. This would:

1.) Apply only to posters from New York.
2.) Be enforceable only for websites based in New York.
3.) Violate the First Amendment.
4.) Encourage the rest of the world to post anonymous comments going in order to piss off New York's politicians.

The bill's sponsors clearly have no clue how the Internet works. If passed (and enforced), people who want to have forums without having to deal with this bit of stupid will simply get a website provider based somewhere other than New York, thus neatly circumventing the bill and fucking with New York's Internet economy.

Ah, politicians. You never fail to provide lols.

Anne wrote:

3.) Violate the First Amendment.

I'm not certain. I mean, they aren't saying that you can't say whatever the hell you please, they're saying you can't do it behind the curtain.

I mean, it's still a laughably stupid and nigh impossible to enforce idea and whoever thought it up should be punched in the nuts by a large hockey player. It just may be constitutional.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Anne wrote:

3.) Violate the First Amendment.

I'm not certain. I mean, they aren't saying that you can't say whatever the hell you please, they're saying you can't do it behind the curtain.

I mean, it's still a laughably stupid and nigh impossible to enforce idea and whoever thought it up should be punched in the nuts by a large hockey player. It just may be constitutional.

Sad to say, you may be right, especially with the morons currently occupying the Supreme Court.