Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture
Aug 24, 2019 7 tweets 2 min read Read on X
THESIS: Classic comic characters work because they have been through a process of SELECTION and REFINEMENT of their stories for a very long time. The work in Hollywood, when Hollywood DOESN’T FUCK WITH THEM.
Does anyone remember the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet? There are traditional and established ways of shortening Shakespeare, but that one MOVED SCENES and CHANGED DIALOGUE.

What total, arrogant DUMBASS thought he could IMPROVE Shakespeare’s dialogue?
My worry with the MCU is that TWO things are going to collide: the forced injection of social justice is going to KILL good storytelling and going to require NEW CHARACTERS (radically altered = new, also), who WON’T WORK, because they haven’t been WINNOWED for 50+ years.
Even small changes by Hollywood meddling can have serious repercussions.

Let me illustrate graphically.

Here’s a seen from the Watchmen movie. Maybe you remember it?
“Your hands, my pleasure” … kind of funny. I guess.

But let’s compare the COMIC.

The line they change is KEY to understanding EVERYTHING about Rorschach.
“Your hands. My PERSPECTIVE.”

See the difference?

That says so much about Rorschach. He IS Rorschach (not Kovacs, not Kovacs at all) JUST BECAUSE of “his perspective”

And some Hollywood scrub writer “didn’t get the line” and changed it for an easy laugh.
I can’t tell you how disappointed I was when the movie was building to that line … and then fucked us with a cheap substitute.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

Nov 3, 2023
I do not believe in the fact/value distinction nor that the supposed is-ought problem is actually a problem.

And I'm not the only one. Hillary Putnam wrote an entire book about it, and you'd be a fool to simply dismiss him.

Go read it first.
amazon.com/Collapse-Value…
As Putnam notes, the fact/value dichotomy fails because it never manages to actually distinguish the two entirely, due to a kind of necessary entanglement (or kinds) between putative "facts" and "values." Image
What we have is a situation of distinction where in some facts are not values, some facts are values, some values are facts, and some values are not facts.

What we do not have is a fact/value dichotomy which amounts to a metaphysical dualism.

Here's a bit more of Putnam:Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 10 tweets
Oct 5, 2023
Uses "word salad" in this way, instead of even trying to address my point (which is of course the correct answer).

Blocked.
This is one of my rules. I use language quite carefully. When someone response to something I have said by calling it "word salad," nothing is lost by blocking them.

There is no possibility they are being an honest interlocutor.
Anyone with more that a child's level of acquaintance with theology should understand that talk about God will always be quite unlike talk about anything else, unlike talk about any creature (which everything but God is).
Read 5 tweets
Sep 18, 2023
This does *seem like* a huge incoherence in transgender ideology.

It seems as if it is absurd on its face to say that children can consent to medical "transition" and a lifetime of medicalization and sterilization, but not consent to smoking a cigarette or having a beer.
And we who are opposed to transgender ideology should continue to press this point in this way.
But, within Gnostic system of transgenderism itself, it doesn't appear this way.

This is because no consent or choice by the child is involved or necessary.
Read 11 tweets
Sep 9, 2023
An honest atheist (if there were such a thing) might say that he does not believe in an uncreated creator. No!—he must pretend that the concept of an uncreated creator is nonsense!

As if everything that does an action need be susceptible to such an action!
Water drowns men. So what drowns water?

Fire burns up wood. So what burn up fire?

Light illuminates the darkness. So what illuminates light?

A bullet kills a man. What kills a bullet?
And if there is no uncreated creator, then

1 Creation is a brute fact, unintelligible, which rejects the principle of sufficient reason and entails radical absurdism

2 There is an equally irrational infinite regress or vicious circle of creators—equally absurd
Read 5 tweets
Aug 27, 2023
Both modes have strengths and weaknesses but picture thinking is terrible with abstractions/things that can’t be imaged.

"I think in words" - Jordan Peterson #shorts youtube.com/shorts/Bq2FSSJ…
A lot of picture-thinkers will form an image of what’s being talked about and then think something that only belongs to the image belongs to the idea itself. Which in turn causes them to miss/reject other cases that instantiate the idea but don’t fit their particular image.
Descartes gives an example of the limits of substituting pictures/the imagination from concepts/the intellect:

Consider a chiliagon, a thousand-sided figure with equal sides. Conceptually, this is easy to understand, but it is impossible to picture clearly and distinctly.
Read 12 tweets
Aug 27, 2023
This is of course wildly false, and depends on an equivocation of the term "natural."

For example, PLASTIC is NATURAL in the sense that it is made of (mostly) carbon.

But it is UNNATURAL is the sense that it is MAN-MADE, ARTIFICIAL.

Plastic does not OCCUR in nature. Image
In THIS case, there are behaviors and states of being that are UNNATURAL to a creature given its NATURE.

For example, diseases are natural, but it does not belong to the nature of an animal TO BE DISEASED.
Nor, to use Aristotle's example, does it belong to the NATURE of human beings to eat dirt or poison.

These are UNNATURAL ACTIONS — given the nature of the organism.

Teeth and the stomach are not FOR eating dirt.
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(