Cool! Banned by Vox!

I had to give Vox a little lesson on Aristole and logic the other day and now he seems to have got a tad upset with me.

Second, while Camestros Felapton has gotten himself banned elsewhere in the Puppyverse, he’d always behaved himself here and never done worse than embarrass himself by demonstrating his inability to understand the core difference between rhetoric and dialectic, and between enthymemes and logical syllogisms. However, he’s been blatantly lying about both me and Castalia House elsewhere, so he’s now permanently banned from commenting here as well.

http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/sjws-strike-back.html

Oopsie!

The rationalization is because of the point I made on File770 regarding the Castalia House published work on Gene Wolfe:

I’ve been a fan of Gene Wolfe for a long time. I love the idea of the work you are doing and from what I have seen the scale of work and scholarship you have put into is impressive. However, I can’t vote for your work when your publisher is promoting it by attempting to exploit issues like child-sexual abuse. There isn’t some neat way of separating ‘Castalia House’ from the actions and strategies of Theodore Beale/Vox Day and there is a qualitative difference between authors who have been unwillingly nominated by the Rabid slate and authors who have willingly chosen to work with Castalia House. I understand that for you it was a matter of getting your work published and promoted and I understand why any author would want that for their work – but in the case of Castalia “promoted” necessarily includes stunts like slating the Hugo awards and attempts to trash whole categories, and it includes slurs and defamation of *other authors* people who, like you, have poured sweat & scholarship and long days/nights into their work. However, I also get that Vox Day perceives criticism as betrayal and that he has a tendency to ‘punish’ what he perceives as betrayal. So I am certainly not asking you denounce Day or withdraw from the awards or any other kind of symbolic action, but I am saying I can’t vote for your work and I can’t see it as a legitimate nomination because there is no way of seperating what is published by Castalia from how Castalia promotes itself and its published works.

Vox claims this somehow ‘proves’ Larry Correia’s point about politics and the Hugos or something. Which is odd because the focus of my point was not Vox Day’s admittedly unpleasant and confused politics but his active campaign against the Hugo Awards and other science-fiction writers.

He also says:

But, as Felapton admits, since he can’t separate the work from the publisher, the merit of the work does not matter and he will not vote for any Castalia-published work on the basis of the genetic fallacy.

Sigh. That isn’t the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of IRRELEVANCE that confuses the SOURCE of a claim with its VERACITY. There isn’t a factual claim at stake here – I’m not saying a factual claim made by an author is false by virtue of his publisher (e.g. if somebody was to say that a claim about Gene Wolfe in the book was false purely on the basis that the book was a Castalia House book THAT would be the genetic fallacy).

My claim is that I can’t reward obnoxious behavior by Castalia House. Nothing to do with the genetic fallacy. Vox concedes that I raise one valid point, which is that “there is no way of separating what is published by Castalia from how Castalia promotes itself and its published works.” That is the ethical basis of my position and Vox concedes that it is valid and not fallacious.

What is more interesting is Vox losing his cool. That is a major departure from his play book and poor tactics. He is actually rattled? Surely not by me, so I assume it must be by El Sandifer’s campaign.

Review: Captain America: Civil War

captain-america-civil-war1

Films in a sequence or series that have a job to do (i.e. get the plot from A to B, join one film to another etc) can often be weak. Films with obvious required plot beats can be dull. Films that are obliged to shoe-horn in characters (particularly superhero movies that have to fit in a required number of villains or heroes) can be boring and over stuffed.

I think, on balance, Civil War manages to just avoid each of these obstacles. It isn’t as tense and tight as Winter Soldier but it feels a lot more plot driven and focused than Age of Ultron. It is arguably the most dark and bleak of the current crop of Marvel films, with substantially less humor.

Despite the title this is equally an Iron Man movie as much a Captain America movie. It is Stark who is often moving the story along and it is Stark whose personal emotional journey is the most important. However, this is a deeply subdued Stark and hence he provides very little of his usual sparkle. While this does make for a darker tone, it adds a human quality to the story. Stark is feeling the cumulative impact of his decisions and the consequences of the destruction caused by the Avengers in Age of Ultron. The idea that the big-fun smash-bang extravaganza of superhero antics is a cause of real, personal human pain runs through the film from beginning to end. Again, no way of having that as a core theme of a superhero film without it have a somewhat depressed tone.

Still, its a Marvel superhero film so we want some fun and this is a film with a distinct job to do: bring in more superhero characters so that the roster can carry more spin-off movies an cycle through other actors.

Overall it does this job well without diverting too much from the plot of the film. Newish editions to the Avenger’s roster, Scarlet Witch and The Vision get a bit more depth than they did in Age of Ultron. Black Panther’s role is OK but a tad one-dimensional due to him getting an unthinking-revenge motivation for most of the film but overall the character is probably the third most significant superhero to the plot (after Captain America and Iron Man). Ant Man gets a look in and brings some much needed humor. Meanwhile Black Widow and Hawkeye provide a link to the previous roster of heroes.

For those interested in the complex web of who owns which Marvel character, the big issue is not the standard Avengers above but rather Spiderman. Tom Holland presents a very youthful Spiderman but has the wonderful advantage of other recent adapatations of not having to reprise an origin story or a back story or much of a Spider-specific story at all. It is primarily the fun aspects of Spiderman, web-slinging, cheeky spider-antics.

Most of this extra hero action is confined to a major set-piece battle at a German airport as the two sets of conflicting heroes square off – Captain America team running a maverick mission versus Iron Man’s team trying to keep them in check. The resulting chaos and mayhem rather prove Iron Man’s point whilst demonstrating that he really shouldn’t have tried to prove that point in the first place.

Dark, a bit of a glum entry into the Marvel suite with some fun sequences and some squee moments (Black Panther’s first appearance in costume). Unlike Age of Ultron, I’m keen to watch this again.