Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th May 2016 09:29 UTC
In the News

Ghost in the Shell is the product of and response to decades of physical erasure and technological alienation. It's pop cultural fallout, a delicately layered croissant of appropriation upon appropriation. It's as timely as ever, but it feels wildly inappropriate for an American studio and the British director of Snow White and the Huntsman to pick it up and sell it back to us. At the same time, Japan and the US have been stealing and selling images to each other for decades, and the result hasn't always been awful. I would still argue, though, that the knotty history that leads to Motoko Kusanagi will be lost in translation. This isn't The Matrix or Pacific Rim, this isn't just a look and a vibe being lifted. This is the entire history of Japan's relationship with itself, the US and technology, and without that, you're left with nothing but an empty prosthesis.

Beautifully written analysis of the Ghost in the Shell casting issue, by Emily Yoshida.

Permalink for comment 628738
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[17]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Sat 14th May 2016 00:58 UTC in reply to "RE[16]: Over thinking it"
Member since:

So you are changing the definition of words in the English language to suit your argument ... This is proper Social Justice Warrior bollox at its finest.

Actually, I haven't changed anything. In fact, it's Cambridge that's attempting to change the definition of "supremacist", in order to make it seem as though whites/Europeans aren't the only people who can be supremacist. However, that's a fallacy. It's a rather weak tactic designed to pave the way for calling others supremacists, despite the fact that they don't have any actual supremacy. Nice try, but we aren't buying it -regardless of the fact that Cambridge is the one trying to sell it.

The link you provided does not in anyway invalidate the meaning of the definition.

It actually validates the point very well -academic publications aren't infallible. Cambridge isn't the authority on the meaning of words. They're just another European group that's key on pushing their opinion as fact.

BTW Cambridge is in England, they don't give a f--k about what Texan's publish.

No one actually gives a shit about that any group in England gives a fuck about. The majority of whitewashing of history originated in England. So, fuck you AND fuck England.

Or is the Cambridge Dictionary Trying to white-wash the English language so that the Black people that invented English aren't represented

Not even worth responding.

I assume next you are going to argue that up is down, things fall upwards.

Why would I try to argue the very stance that you've taken?

EDIT: I decided to continue arguing the toss, because I am pasting this nonsense on facebook, that a good few friends of mine are finding hilarious.

If you actually think that I give a shit about you & your circle jerk of ass-eating friends, then you're dumber than you originally seemed.

Reply Parent Score: 2