:lol: Yeah right, I have delusions of grandeur. ON AN INTERNET FORUM.
EDIT: In fact, your entire argument is as follows: "If you think Loki is gay-coded, you're a bigot or a woman.
Correction: Bigot or "Squeeing fangirl / fanfic writer". Not "woman".
But apparently to you all women are squeeing fangirls, which again demonstrates your own personal bigotry.
"Fanfic writers", huh
? Well, whatever, but I hate to tell you this, but those of us of the queeny persuasion tend to also develop queer-as-hell readings of media, because of a number of factors. Part of it is because actually being gay means that you're more sensitive to the homoerotic because you interact with it on a regular basis. Part of it is an attempt to claim media for ourselves in the face of token/minstrel representation. Part of it is because a relatively high proportion of out queers in the media industries incorporate deliberate subtext into their works. And none of it actually needs any justification.
But your presumption is that a straight reading should be privileged above all others. This is much, much closer to bigotry, as it reinforces the conception of queerness as transgressive and unusual as compared to straights. Or maybe you go for asexual readings being privileged above all others, in which case you may well be a troper or someone else not worthy of my time. Going after "squeeing fangirls" is hilarious and perniciously sexist, because it presumes that there is something wrong with gay readings of a work of media or male-oriented homoerotic fantasies a priori and without equal condemnation of straight readings or heteroerotic fantasies or female-oriented homoerotic fantasies- as though a terrible piece of slash were somehow worse than a terrible hetero fanfic or even a terrible piece of femslash.
In fact, the only thing possible is surface details and superficiality. Subtextuality is not allowed. Nor is depth."
Actually, I never argued this. What I'm arguing (which you've sidestepped) is that analysis must be based on fact. Otherwise, it's a useless and irrelevant analysis.
In fact, I have shown an analysis that shows a deeper side to Loki's villainy - which again I cribbed off Erik Kain.
Loki is a villain who is possessed by a need to reaffirm his own self worth. Because, as Phil said, he has "no conviction". All of his actions are nothing more than his own desperate attempts to prove that he's actually a God as opposed to a loser lowlife.
That's actually not superficial. That's actually a pretty nice insight to the nature of evil, and it provides a level of continuity from Thor wherein he kills his real father in order to try and be accepted by the Asgardians. His towering ego and his grandiose schemes exists to fill the dark hole inside of himself more than anything else.
Please don't brag about how you're unable to think for yourself, please don't think that "evil people are all losers" is a meaningful or interesting insight, please don't talk about "relevancy", please shut up, please crush your fingers in a vice...
This isn't a particularly deep analysis either, and since your first attempt was literally taking what's onscreen and saying that that's analysis and now you're moving on to grasping the basic message that the film is trying to convey, I have to conclude that you are kind of like an idiot who keeps pressing the same button.
EDIT: In fact, your entire argument is as follows: "If you think Loki is gay-coded, you're a bigot or a woman. In fact, the only thing possible is surface details and superficiality. Subtextuality is not allowed. Nor is depth."
No, “squeeing fan-girl” does not, in fact, equal woman. It implies a certain sub-set of immature female humans and does not represent “women” as a whole by any means. Adult women of intelligence and insight also recognize that in this movie Loki is not gay. The fact you equate “squeeing fan girl” with “woman” reveals your own bias in this case. It is comparable to equating “effeminate gay” with “man”, completely ignoring that “effeminate gay” is a small sub-set of men. Actually, it's a subset of gay men
, just as “sqeeing fan-girl” is a subset of “women who watched The Avengers
Facts – that is, what is presented – is what you need to draw conclusions. Your “surface details” as it were. “Subtext” in the form of persecution fantasies pulled out of your ass are what's not allowed.
Why exactly do people think that literary analysis is something that is entirely distinct from any other branch of academia, such that they can spout off with shit like this that clearly shows how little they know about it? I mean, I don't know where to start here. I literally do not know where to start with this.
Profit is inherently exploitative, provided we accept that people are paid for the work they do.
If a company isn't profitable it doesn't remain in business. Thus, part of the workers' labor goes into maintaining the company that employs them. You also seem to have this quaint notion that the owner(s) of a company don't also work.
Why doesn't it remain in business? Because of the capitalist system, not because of any sort of natural law. So this isn't a meaningful argument in the practical sense, and it doesn't address the moral argument about exploitation. Unless you're talking about operating expenses, in which case I have to fucking laugh.
Also, you're not reading my argument, because I distinguished between an owner who works (most privately-owned or non-traded companies) and owners who don't work and are entirely dependent on exploitation for their wealth (publicly-owned companies). So a great deal of your post is not something that I will address, because it is founded on a misconception.
Leaving aside the exploitative practices of some massive corporations I'm sure we can all name, a more typical business is the small business, where the owner is frequently working alongside the other workers and it's not unknown for the employees to get paid before the boss takes his or her share. When I worked in construction I was aware of several situations where I got paid for may labor when the boss either got far less or took a loss on a job because something had gone wrong. That's what folks like you miss - that it's not all about sucking the workers dry, sometimes the boss/owner takes a loss because an ethical capitalist will fulfill his/her obligations to pay workers and vendors. In those circumstances are the workers then exploiting the owner?
You literally have no capability to distinguish between profit and compensation. You are a fucking idiot, and you ignore that the majority of workers work in businesses with more than a hundred employees. Defining a company with five or four hundred people as "small" is a bit ridiculous, especially since "small" more often connotes business with closer to twenty people than a hundred, in which case only a fifth of all workers are employed by businesses that people would think of as small.
Part of the reason a business or owner doesn't split all proceeds evenly among all is to provide a capital reserve for the business to tide over such losses, make improvements in conditions, purchase new equipment or materials, and so forth. There are circumstances where labor/workers provide all their own equipment and tools, we call them "independent contractors". They typically are paid significantly more than hourly or even many salaried workers which sure makes them seem a lot less exploited but much of that "extra" money is devoured by the necessity of supplying their own business overhead.
So the law is written to favor corporate associations and the surrender of control of capital. I'm glad that you understand that, but I'm afraid you're not willing to move on to the next step. In any case, the response to this
You see, when I've worked as an IC I've had to spend time, money, and effort on purchasing tools, equipment, repairing stuff, office supplies, record-keeping for tax purposes, etc. When I've been an hourly worker the company provided all that meaning that if something broke I didn't have to fix it, the company just got me a new widget or dohickey. The company provides accounting services for much of the tax-related stuff (though not all). And so on. That's time and money I don't have to spend, and in that sense it, too, is "compensation". People who travel on business frequently can get perks like reduced costs on personal travel outside of business, which has monetary value. In my current job I have access to a shop I can use a limited number of hours a week for my own project, a shop it would cost me a year or two's salary to duplicate. People who work at the store my company rents space from get a steep discount on such basics as food and clothing which greatly extends their buying power. In fact, these days "compensation" isn't strictly about numbers on the paycheck. It is common for there to be other forms of reward when working for someone else that, if assigned a dollar value, vastly increases the "compensation" a worker receives.
Congrats on an off-topic rant about how wonderful corporations are for doing things that don't actually require a capitalist system.
But do tell me how, in your communist paradise, small business type things would be taken care of. How would your economic system provide such niceties as car repair, clothing and food distribution, and so forth?
You see, communism as practiced in the real world hasn't done all that well. I realize, of course, that "as practiced" is not a pure form of communism - but then, even the US doesn't have pure capitalism, either. I'm not totally opposed to all forms of communism, and in certain circumstances it can be the better system but those situations tend to involve only a very few number of people.
How would car repair work? Well, for one thing, the workers and the manager would have an equal say in the direction of the business, they'd all probably get paid a bit better if they worked for one of the conglomerate repair shops, and they'd have a better quality of service overall without the profit motive depressing quality in favor of profitability.
The same thing for any small business- they would simply be run democratically as opposed to authoritarianly, they would probably have a somewhat better quality of service or product without the profit motive to depress quality, and they'd probably be better paid, especially if they did demeaning work that it's difficult to take pride in. I realize that these are no doubt terrifyingly utopian vistas, but I have oxygen masks in case you ave difficulty breathing.
One of the on-going criticisms of communism is that if truly one is compensated based on need (not want but need) but contributes based on ability then by virture of some having far more ability than average they are called upon to exert far more than average... yet receive no more than anyone else. Is that just? Isn't that equally exploitative of talent and ability? And if you do give those contributing the most something extra beyond just what they need then you aren't talking about pure communism anymore, you've added a capitalist element: if you do more you get more.
This is fucking stupid. Like, you have no idea what the hell socialist theories of pay are based on, because you're repeating 1950s-era crude propaganda as fact. You are, in fact, talking out of your butt, and there's actually nothing capitalist about receiving more compensation for more work, since it is a factor in precapitalist economic systems and in the majority of proposed postcapitalist systems as well.
But hey, here's an idea how compensation would work outside the capitalist system. Let's say you have a doctor, a janitor, and a mechanic. The janitor would be paid exceptionally well to compensate for her demeaning labor with few inherent compensations, while the doctor would be paid well for spending her time to become a doctor and treat patients, but not as much because parts of her job are inherently satisfying, and the mechanic would probably be paid less than either of them because it took her less time to acquire the skills to repair airplanes or whatever, and her job also has inherently satisfying elements. In other words, compensation would be based on the job. Difficult jobs would pay more. Demeaning jobs would pay more. Jobs that require a significant time expense on behalf of the worker would pay more. This is something that it took me five minutes to come up with, so I guess that your imagination simply has failed you.
PS: You still are talking out of your ass. Please don't, as I'm starting to feel sorry for you embarrassing yourself like this.
In other words, for you this is all about scoring points rather than actually defending your position on something. Rather like your film reviews.
No, your positions are ignorant and you're flaunting that ignorance and you're effectively proud of that ignorance and that is embarrassing for you, or would be if you would listen and realize that you have no clothes, O Empress.
But, getting back to the movie - so, you're saying that the Avengers were exploited by Evil Capitalist Fury because (apparently) the only compensation they got for their efforts and risk was a lunch of shawarma. Which, for all we know, was paid for by Stark and the Avengers actually got nothing from Fury. Or is this the ideal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" written down by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program? The Avengers have great ability and thus use it in service to the world, but they only need lunch afterward so that's all they get. Is that just? You save the world at great personal risk, thanks, here's a sandwich for all that. Can we call you again next time? Is this a parable of the Noble Communist Heros being mercilessly exploited by the Evil Capitalist Manipulator? Or is it that Our Heros aren't taking more than they need, being NCH's, and absolutely not exploiting the poor proles they just risked their lives to save?
Please don't vomit meaningless, off-topic insanity all over the thread in the future, thanks.