The smug writers seemed to have overlooked a few. Maybe including them would have struck too close to home. Perhaps they inhabit their blind spot.
Abortion.....talk about human sacrifice.
Well, in the real world Heartless Capitalism or whatever this Mister World represented would have been an elder god and the Tech boy would be serving the hydra of Political Correctness and the many-faced phantom of Social Justice. Not to mention the ever changing Today's Truth.
shareMr. World is Globalization. Worldwide franchise.
shareUh, those aren't caused by "gods" , they are completely human actions.
As opposed to "war", "death", "guns", "media", and "tech"?
shareIf ALL actions were caused by gods, which they are not, then they'd fall under those categories. A lot of humans did Not believe in gods or God and follow their own path, good, bad or random. IMHO
Did you miss the part where the "gods" are just metaphors for what people spend their time effectively worshiping? What's important to them personally or culturally? Do you think the gods of mass media and technology are literally referring to religions based around media and technology?
And since you raised the issue, do you not see religious-like devotion among many of the small minority of humans who have been atheists and who replace God with things like the state (e.g. Marxism), "science" (Nazis), race (Nazis again; sometimes Marxists too), drugs, money, celebrity worship, etc.? How about those who view themselves as gods?
Hmm, interesting, I haven't read the book (although I think I will now), but from the series I have to say I didn't get this.
I get it now, it's the difference between what people used to worship in the past and what they worship now.
Although I am still somewhat unclear on Bilquis. If she is the goddess of love, why would she ever become unwanted, why would she need a new deal with Mr.World?
Don't know. I stopped watching a few episodes ago because the series is asinine. At best it was a wasted opportunity. I haven't read the book either, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
shareWell... hmm... to me the last thing this series was is asinine. But to each his/her own.
shareI made it thru all 8 episodes of the first season, but it was a chore. I won't be watching season 2, since season 1 pretty much went nowhere. Odd, the first two episodes had some intriguing ideas. Too bad they didn't do anything with them.
I'm still shaking my head that this ultra R-rated series is from the same guy who created Coraline. There was stuff in American Gods that would make the creators of Hellraiser blush.
Yeah, you are the only one who is hung up on that.
Let it go. Nobody cares.
Yes. Neil Gaiman is a very complex writer. Have you read any of his other works?
shareExatera, I think the point is that our modern world has given up on love, doesn’t even know what it is, and confuses it with lust. Sixty percent of marriages in the US end in divorce. How can an intimate romantic relationship succeed when people don’t have even basic social skills, or role models from whom to learn? That’s a rhetorical question. True romantic love demands kindness, caring and commitment—three qualities that scare the toadstools out of people today. True love requires real work (a subset of commitment), which is hard to find in our instant-everything modern world. Yes, people may want love, but, as motivational speaker Anthony Robbins teaches, there is a huge difference between WANTING something and BEING COMMITTED to having it. Worship of a god is a commitment. This is why Bikquis lost her devoted servants. I mean, who has the time or patience for real love?
Yes. It’s beyond sad.
So, I take it from your other posts, season 2 isn't worth watching?
Well, I meant the situation about love in the modern world is beyond sad. I’m still undecided about Season 2. In fact, I was just about to re-watch episode 2.3, because I don’t remember much of it from last night, and don’t much like what I do recall, except for Mad Sweeney, whom I love. I LIKE the cast. I LIKE the production values. I have serious reservations about the writing and the showrunners. I need to see the vectors of the narrative gelling faster. I’ve not read the book, and I’m impatient with the slow pace, whereas Game of Thrones had me at Scene One. So did Counterpart, and Westworld. I think the dorks running this are telling themselves, “They are gonna be SO GLAD they waited,” and then discover that no one waited for their inept crap.
I’m in till the end. I can give you a report then, and you can dive into a binge, or not. I like you. I’d do that for you, if you like. I hope it turns out to be binge-worthy (a distant allusion to Elaine’s “sponge-worthy” comment on Seinfeld).
Ha, sure, thanks. :)
Interesting. I was remembering when Wednesday was talking about how the gods disappeared when Not worshiped or enough. I suppose they could be replaced, but I was still talking of actions that humans take on their own, without a gods stance or following a god. I still think that's viable idea without a human having a god to follow. Gaiman is complex. I will watch season 2, as I think Season one mostly a "set up" for the next installment. Like an entire season of cliff hangers. And Starz might have been being careful about committing to a season 2 unless season one had ratings. I am committed enough to watch 2 and get more answers or depth.
shareWho WORSHIPS any of these things, though?
sharelet me take a wild guess. in his crazy mind a fictional homogenic group he declares as "liberals", but basically means everybody that disagrees with his worldview.
shareAre you kidding? Abortion is an article of faith on the American left. It's the most important political issue, way more important than "guns" (aka the Second Amendment). One's stance on it serves as a litmus test for politicians and judges, and has become the primary mechanism for aligning people into either the "liberal" or "conservative" camps, in much the way that slavery ultimately became the polarizing partisan issue in the 1800s. Hard core liberals have said and done some truly disgusting things to try to defend abortion. The US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world thanks to activism and the Supreme Court. And, as I said, 10s of millions of dead babies fit much better with the "human sacrifice" theme than "business" or whatever moronic message the show was trying to convey.
Environmentalism? There are people who literally worship the earth now, and neopaganism in various forms is trendy. Corporations spend millions wanting to be perceived as "green friendly", environmentalism is tied up with virtue in a way that most other political issues aren't, and there's a nexus of trillions of dollars worldwide between governments, political activists, and "science" (government grants). Scientists and others who deviate from the AGW line in any way are marginalized and treated as heretics. A huge chunk of deranged liberals literally accuse their conservative opponents of supporting policies that would destroy the planet. Atheist film maker Darren Aronofsky even turned the Biblical Noah account on its head, making it an environmentalist morality play.
The militant PC regime is cult-like in that it seeks to control people by altering how they speak and think from the top down, bypassing debate by making its opponents' positions unacceptable on their face to even entertain, suppressing critical thinking, replacing discourse with mindless slogan chanting and attacking free speech through violent mob action.
All these things have their own ecclesiastical vocabulary (e.g. "choice", "denier", "microagression", "privilege"), and are dominant on top of most key societal organs (e.g. media/entertainment, education system, increasingly the corporate world). Especially in Hollywood, people either endorse the leftist party line on these issues with appropriate enthusiasm or they keep their mouths shut out of justifiable fear of repercussions.
Government dependence, something describing how people increasingly live more than how they prefer to describe themselves, is perhaps the most widespread of all these. It can be viewed as worship of government itself, which gets closer to how liberals in particular actually speak and think about it. To someone who has replaced God with the state, the solution to almost every problem is a government program. "Generosity" and "compassion" are euphemisms for one's support for government expansion, rather than descriptions of personal virtue in action. The Constitution, freedom, principles of limited government, all things that used to be dear to the entire American spectrum, are now seen as obstacles to "social justice", which of course, is to be delivered by massive, aggressive state action. The more people on welfare, or dependent on programs like social security or Medicare, or whatever new entitlements are dreamed up that transfer resources and daily decision making from the individual to the government, the better. The more regulatory control over everything from private business transactions to how big a sugary drink you're allowed to buy, the better. The closer a once free, self reliant people get to living as managed livestock, the better.
Now while I can back up my arguments, therefdotcom, your post was hypocritical projection on your part given that the show you take offense to me criticizing actually does what you accuse me of. They demonized conservatives, Protestant Christians, and Heartland dwellers with a caricature that's not even in the ballpark of true. They somehow crammed together Christianity, support for the Second Amendment, free enterprise, and killing illegal aliens as they cross the border in a vision that only the most delusional, out of touch leftist bottom feeder could see as anything other than moronic. Fuller and Green are little twerps who don't know what they're talking about. Rural/suburban Christians, people they clearly have no knowledge of or respect for, aren't "insular" (as they falsely implied in a self congratulatory post episode interview). They don't worship guns, though most love freedom and view the right to bear arms as vital to freedom (so did the founding fathers, and others around the world like sci-fi writer A. E. van Vogt - "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"). Wanting to live in a nation of laws isn't anti-Christian (see Romans 13), bigoted, or murderous. These Heartlander Americans are at least as Christian as anyone else.
For example, studies show that American conservatives are the most charitable people on earth (with their time as well as money), especially the more religious they are. It'd be easy to argue that those in urban enclaves are the "insular" ones, only "cosmopolitan" inside their own little bubbles, which they rarely if ever leave. They certainly give less of their time and money to charity, viewing it as the government's responsibility rather than their own. People in the south in particular are also the friendliest people in the country, which almost everyone who visits the region remarks on. They aren't sour faced little girls glaring at you from the sidewalk while holding rifles, lol. That was pure BS.
01. dude, you just adressed that to yourself. when pressing the right "reply" button alredy is too complicated, maybe arguments are not for you.
02. "your post was hypocritical projection on your part". the height of irony is that you actually start up with this introduction, before proving me 100% right.
1. I do that to keep my multi-post replies together, moron, which is common practice and which you should have been smart enough to at least consider as a possibility.
2. I literally addressed you by name in that line just to make sure there was no confusion. Amazingly it still went over your head, proving that you're still projecting with your comments on comprehension and being "right".
1. common practice in the asylum. btw, it's not common practice if you are the only one doing it. and no, your other 36 personalities don't count.
2. so, you wanted to remind yourself, that you are actually talking to someone that does not inhabit your body? maybe not the worst of ideas.
you understand, that you did not bring a single argument, right? you got like 65 initial statements in a row, without arguing over a single one, not to speak of proof.
lets start with the first one:
"Abortion is an article of faith on the American left"
now it is up to you, to prove that without gettimg sidetracked into 20 new topics.
more thinking, less writing.
You missed the rest of the paragraph that fleshed out my statement. Feel free to challenge anything in particular (political judicial litmus test, tens of millions of dead babies, etc.). Here, I'll even provide additional support:
"Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state....Every candidate who runs as a Democrat should do the same because every woman should be able to make her own health choices, period." - Tom Perez, DNC Chair
Of course "health choices" here is a euphemism for abortion. Look how hard Democrats even fight to continue to force tax payers to subsidize Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider in the country. Abortion on demand simply being legal isn't enough. An Obamacare mandate even sought to force doctors to perform or assist in abortions whether it violated their conscience or not.
You also missed the fact that my posts are a reply to the show and a challenge for you or anyone else to support AG's insipid depictions. I'm showing that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Better even in this case. So far you've just posted a couple of baseless one liners. When it comes to more thinking, physician heal thyself.
nothing in that paragraph did flesh out your argument. what's there to challenge. you haven't brought anything to the table yet.
and by quoting one dude you are expecting to have what impact exactly?
"You also missed the fact that my posts are a reply to the show"
how does one "reply" to a show?
"and a challenge for you or anyone else to support AG's insipid depictions."
1. what depiction exactly
2. for what purpose?
by quoting one dude you are expecting to have what impact exactly?
actually it substantiates shit, since you still haven't said anything of substance. so it's back to square one, buddy.
shareGuess we'll have to agree to disagree.
shareYou're trying to argue with a fool, don't waste your time. He wasn't asking a question or even making a point, he was just dropping his BS. I'm honestly shocked he hasn't resorted to acronyms like "SJW" yet. Must be one of the most literate ones.
shareYes, after all the extended arguments above I see now that you are right. They weren't there yet back when I responded.
share"I'm honestly shocked he hasn't resorted to acronyms like "SJW" yet."
just a matter of time.
Oh I made my point, moron. You just don't like it.
shareand that would be?
shareThat their presentation is skewed, and while they're largely using this metaphorical template to bash conservatives and Christians it could easily be turned around on liberal sacred cows they hold dear with at least as much validity.
share01. who is "they"?
02. "they're largely using this metaphorical template to bash conservatives". ok, now we have an initial statement, which you then have to prove, before going further. give it a try.
03. "it could easily be turned around on liberal sacred cows". which is also an initial statement, you would have to prove, but let's start with the previous one, if your mind is cabale to concenrate for 5 minutes.
ok, go.
Your reading comprehension sucks. See if you can figure out whose "presentation" I'm referring to from context clues. It'd be good thinking practice for you. You could work some very atrophied muscles.
shareso, are you afraid or not capable?
anyhow, time for bed. i hope you have a very WHITE sleep, just how you like it. ;)
Need more time? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73tGe3JE5IU
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2kHBsf_8xg
make that clickable yourself. xD
Wrong. The answer isn't Austrian rap. Though it'd be interesting to see the old god of the American Melting Pot take on the new god "Multiculturalism" and his gimp Balkanization, with the outcome determining whether or not your little Austrian rappers end up being attacked for "cultural appropriation" by Multiculturalism's brother Political Correctness.
PS - Sorry, that should read Multiculturalism's sibling Political Correctness.
Boys, Boys, take it outside or to another spot. I enjoyed Krl97a's ideas, disagreed with some and made a reply. I didn't get into a pissing contest on a written forum. It's not easy to make your point this way, it's a message board. Both of you are trying to turn this into a political fight and it seems neither one of you is going to change their mind. OK, you have every right, just take a breath and try and agree on something, otherwise your in a loop. IMHO
shareanswer to what?
"Though it'd be interesting to see the old god of the American Melting Pot take on the new god "Multiculturalism" and his gimp Balkanization, with the outcome determining whether or not your little Austrian rappers end up being attacked for "cultural appropriation" by Multiculturalism's brother Political Correctness.
PS - Sorry, that should read Multiculturalism's sibling Political Correctness. "
so your initial statement would be which? it's really not that hard, dude.
What's the difference between "American Melting Pot" and "multiculturalism"?
shareThe former is about assimilation, incorporating new contributions from immigrants while preserving a shared, core American culture that immigrants in turn embrace. It's been the dominant and oft commented on dynamic through most of US history. Multiculturalism is a creation in recent decades that opposes assimilation and instead seeks to freeze each individual immigrant culture in place. Its proponents speak of a "salad bowl" rather than a "melting pot", and either deny that a core American culture exists or treat it as something undesirable that should be marginalized and stamped out. It's somewhat similar to liberal Canadians boasting about their country being a "Mosaic" and using government power to forcibly preserve a separate French culture and region within the nation, except more so since there are far more types of immigrant subcultures in the US and they're more mixed up throughout the country. Critics of multiculturalism say it effectively leads to Balkanization and its associated problems, and point to things like the Quebec Independence movement in Canada and all those recurring problems. They say it's largely a vehicle for dividing people into groups and playing identity politics for strategic advantage.
Overlapping with the multicultural push are relativism and the PC regime, the latter stridently condemning alleged acts of "cultural appropriation" in recent years, from "offensive" Halloween costumes (which at this point includes almost all Halloween costumes) to Katy Perry using Geisha inspired themes in her concerts to white women belly dancing to non-Hispanics opening burrito businesses.
Like much of the modern academic left's positions, under scrutiny all this collapses under its own contradictions. Aside from absurd double standards in practice, what these PC morons fail to realize is all culture is appropriated. Ideas are shared between more than one person. That's how language and culture form in the first place.