I remember it as depressing. Though worthwhile in that earnest 50s/60s manner. Which, to tell the truth, I miss. The world would be a poorer place without “On the Waterfront.”

It seems we get plenty of films today that attempt to be socially meaningful but are so obvious and contrived virtue signaling there aren’t any stakes for the viewer and remain empty exercises.

“Cicero on September 26, 2021 at 1:39 pm said:

Zaphod: Agree!
But read “Comanches” by the TX historian Fehrenbach. McMurtry commends it!”

Read “Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans” by the same author first.

It is what used to be called narrative or even “romantic” history; somewhat, in its narration of the lives and events covered, in the vein of say, Prescott’s “History of the Conquest of Mexico”, or Samuel Eliot Morison’s much later work [relative to Prescott] on the voyages of Columbus.

Read it. Before the book burners get to it.

(Well, one of those “perfect” vehicles, anyway, along with the Executive, Legislative and Justice branches of government…nor should one forget Law Enforcement and the Armed Forces…. Yes, absolutely “perfect” for a consummate perfectionist such as Obama…)

Yep, that oh-so-special Obama sense of humor kicks in again!

No, you cannot reason with people like that. And it’s why half the people here cannot communicate with their own children or in-laws. Because, they live by a completely different standard, in an alternate psychological and moral reality.

James Lindsay addressed that a year ago:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/

In Sum

One of the biggest mistakes we keep making as liberals who do value debate, dialogue, conversation, reason, evidence, epistemic adequacy, fairness, civility, charity of argument, and all these other “master’s tools” is that we can expect that advocates of Critical Social Justice also value them. They don’t. Or, we make the mistake that we can possibly pin Critical Social Justice advocates into having to defend their views in debate or conversation. We can’t.

These principles and values are rejected to their very roots within the Critical Social Justice worldview, and so the request for an advocate to have a debate or conversation with someone who disagrees will, to the degree they have adopted the Critical Social Justice Theoretical ideology/faith, be a complete nonstarter. It’s literally a request to do the exact opposite of everything their ideology instructs with regard to how the world and “systemic oppression” within it operates—to participate in their own oppression and maintain oppression of the people they claim to speak for.

Convenient, that. I guess it all comes down to power, and us resisting their efforts to twist our own principles and morality against us to grant them power they don’t deserve.