HelixDab2

Here's the basic line of thought:

Men occupy a more powerful position in society due to the generally patriarchal structures. Women occupy a less powerful position than men, even when a particular women holds more overt power (e.g., a woman that's a CEO). As a result, sexual relationships between men and women always have a power imbalance; that imbalance of power means that women can never really be consenting, since there's always some form of 'threat' involved. A woman that believes she wants sex believes that way because society has conditioned her to be that way, rather than that being something she chose in a vacuum.

And theoretically, this is all true, kind of. But it also isn't, because that would mean that women can never have any agency over their own body or their own sexual choices. ...Unless they "choose" to be lesbian, which isn't actually a choice at all.

That's... Genuinely complicated.

Kids aren't asexual, and then BOOM they're sexual the second they hit 18. I was very interested in sex from an age that would make most people deeply uncomfortable to think about. Romeo and Juliet laws exist because we recognize that first, kids are going to be sexual, and second, it's not always going to be with peers that are exactly their own age, and that prosecuting minors for statutory rape--since neither party could legally consent--is a little crazy.

So there needs to be some kind of line between recognizing that kids are sexual, and adults not treating them in a sexual way.

I don’t think Starship Troopers really describes an utopia

I disagree. Rico's family was quite well off. They lived a very comfortable life, and his dad didn't see any reason to go to the effort of gaining citizenship, because it earned him nothing more than what he already had. They had basic rights, they just weren't citizens with the right to vote. Rico joined because he had a more civic-minded group of friends that was joining. TBH, Rico isn't shown as being particularly bright; when he did his aptitude tests, mobile infantry was the very best that he was qualified for, and... That wasn't really that great. (That would be like getting a 36 on the ASVABs right now; juuuuuuuuuust enough to get into the Marine Corp, and not high enough to do anything other than the most basic jobs.) As far as a human population goes that we see in the story, there isn't any obvious underclass, which is a requirement for fascism. Yes, there were non-citizens that had no vote, but there was always a path for them to get their franchise, if they were willing to put in the effort. (As far as I recall, there wasn't a specific requirement that you serve in military; given that Heinlein goes out of his way to say that a position would be created for someone that was profoundly disabled, I think it's pretty clear that it was never just military service. But Heinlein was a military vet, and he was writing science fiction for a YA audience at the time, and military service was more exciting than, say, civil engineering.)

Moreover, Heinlein goes out of his way to say that no one that is currently in their term of service has the franchise. By choosing to become career military, Rico is giving up the ability to exercise his franchise unless and until he retires. Fascism is often--if not always--characterized by military control over large areas of civilian life. But if the military has no direct political power, that's sharply undermined.

And the democracy-accustomed reader is expected to understand the horror of these practices,

...But it was a democracy. It just wasn't a birthright democracy. Every person had to affirmatively choose to work for citizenship, rather than citizenship being granted based on where you were born, or who your parents were, but the right to work towards citizenship was afforded to everyone regardless of parentage, etc. I think that's a pretty positive thing, TBH. I think that the US would likely be a lot better place politically if everyone had to be personally invested in the system, and if everyone had to actually pass civics and history tests before they were allowed to vote. I know, I know, it's crazy, but maaaaaaaaybe a basic understanding of civics would mean that someone like Trump never would have gotten elected in the first place, since he's so bent on undermining and destroying the entire system.

I think that Heinlein gets some things very right; people value a thing much more if they have to put in some kind of personal effort to get the thing than people who simply have it handed to them. I also think that he gets some things very, very wrong, like his ideas on corporal punishment. (Which, TBF, were not that out of line for 1959.)

And this, in my opinion, is Starship Troopers’ greatest and most unique trait.

I think that you haven't read very much Heinlein if you think that he was writing satire at this point in his career. Stranger In a Strange Land had elements of satire, and Job was absolutely satire, but things like The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is very straight forward. Heinlein is remarkably consistent in a lot of his writing; he's largely libertarian and believes people should be able to be self-reliant, but he still mostly believes in the gov't as a positive force. He's deeply distrustful of religion though; any time religion shows up in his books, it's a net negative.

We're also not given any circumstances behind this war. We can't draw any definitive conclusions about it.

Heinlein was a WWII veteran, and WWII was where the concept of 'total war' was pioneered. (And later demonstrated to be a pretty bad idea, but that's still not accepted by everyone.) We firebombed Tokyo and Dresden, knowing that it would cause massive civilian casualties, with only the barest military excuses; civilian casualties were the point, because we believed that it would break the will of the people of Germany and Japan to keep fighting. We can look back now and see that this was a dumb idea, esp. since Hitler was doing the same thing to England, and it was stiffening the resolve of the English. But unless you argue that the Allies were fundamentally fascist during WWII--which seems plainly false--then it's not reasonable to argue that the idea of total war was a fascist idea.

At a minimum, we know that it's a failed idea now.

Couple points:

Verhoeven didn't even read the source material. Starship Troopers (the book), is only fascist if you assume that anyone that's pro-military is fascist. Heinlein was a very unlikely fascist, given that he was largely libertarian. The point of the book was that people needed to be directly, personally invested in a society for it to function; the bugs were a plot device that he used to flesh out his social concepts. It was closer to utopian than fascist.

Secondly, Lucas directly based Star Wars off Kurosawa Akira's "The Hidden Fortress". Ideas about the rebels and the empire might have been echoing US imperialism in Vietnam, but the overarching narrative structure owes a lot to Kurosawa. Ben Kenobi, Princess Leia, Darth Vader, C3PO and R2-D2 are very clearly present in the Kurosawa film. It's a fun movie, if not terribly deep or meaningful compared to Kurosawa's later films, and I would def. recommend it.

I agree it would be nice if power editors, at least, were not anonymous.

Everything has to be sourced from a reputable source. So I don't see why this is a huge problem. As long as they're sourcing their edits, and using reputable, verifiable sources, why should it matter if they're anonymous or not?

I recently acquired my first 'air fryer'.

Yes, it's an oversized, convection toaster oven, with a lot of fancy programs built in that I probably don't need.

Having had a (gas) convection oven in the past, it's just not the same. It heats up faster, and seems to do a better job of circulating air. Supposedly I had a pretty nice convection oven, too.

I can make really tasty falafel in my 'air fryer' that uses a tiny fraction of the oil that is used for deep frying; I wasn't able to make decent falafel in my convection oven. Does a great job with frozen fries and tater tots too. I need to try roasting brussels sprouts in it, maybe some asparagus.

So far, it's an easy 9/10. The only downside is the footprint.

How about not putting them on television or in news releases in the first place? Maybe let them have privacy until they're charged and/or convicted? How about that?

Inkjet definitely has a place; it's for high-resolution and accuracy printing, esp. photography. Consumer-level inkjet printers are mostly a waste of money. A correctly calibrated ink jet printer will print color more accurately--within it's gamut capability--and be higher resolution than laser printers. I've really liked Epson large format printers in the past, but I'm not sure who currently does the best large photo printers.

Absolutely.

I mean, that's part of the reason that I'm here, rather than The Place That Shall Not Be Named. That, and because my account was permanently banned because I suggested torching the house of a someone flying a nazi flag.

The fundamental difference is who is in control, and for what purpose.

American spyware is controlled by corporations, and is all about selling you shit you don't need.

Chinese (and Russian) spyware is--apparently--controlled rather directly by their respective governments, and is being used to suppress democracy and increase polarization in the US and EU.

I don't like any spyware. But the latter category--spyware that's functionally state-sponsored--is clearly more immediately dangerous. The former is more like a slow-growing cancer.

TBH, the strippers I've known IRL were actually doing that. One of them got a degree from a pricey art school and now is a VP at an advertising firm (she started as a photographer, moved up to graphic design, then art direction...). I'm acquainted with one that has a day job as an attorney and does it because she both enjoys it, and it pays better than most legal jobs.