Firefly as good as Mad Men? Seriously? Don't get me wrong, I'm as Browncoaty as they come, but Firefly, as good as it was, was no Mad Men.
That aside, fans are crazy. The Firefly nonprofit is almost as good as the time one of the biggest Harry Potter fanfiction archives tried to win a $25k grant competition, with other competitors in it to keep music programs in schools, art programs for homeless kids, etc., to buy themselves new servers.
"I know this is an argument that has been made and debunked many times before. If I really cared so much about making a difference in the world, why don't I leave my job as a glorified typist and go help starving children somewhere?"
That's the wrong argument. You're not telling how people should change the world. You're telling people how to spend their time & money. Your job now is to debunk the argument that you shouldn't be the person to make everyone else's decisions for them.
I, too, draw the line just past where I'm standing. Things look fine on my side of the line, but over there, on the other side? Those people are crazy. Can't they see the line?
I thought Firefly was boring and the type of people who liked it were older "syfy" (yep, they are spelling it that way now...speaking for forming an internet campaign...how about one to stop them from using SYFY ??) guys (yes, older than me!) who "really liked" the nubile actress who played whatever-her-name-was with all those like special powers and stuff.
"Abed and I made a pact that, if one of us dies, we make it look like a suicide caused by the cancellation of Firefly. We're gonna get that show back on the air, buddy."
We get to spend our money how we want, Paul. There's charities to fix important, pressing problems like poverty and access to healthcare, and there's charities to make this world more awesome, like any arts program you can name. And you can give money to both. Who are you to bash me if HelpNathanBuyFirefly gets on my list after my monthly donations to the ACLU, Amnesty International and Children International? Your argument is essentially the same stale anti-NASA argument people throw out that we shouldn't be spending millions on space exploration when there are still so many problems down here on the ground. No one's saying we shouldn't spend the majority of our money on sensible worthy causes, but we never know what divides will be paid out by making the world more awesome.
Will we ever get our show back? Probably not, but you don't join a cause because it's a sure bet. Hell, maybe if this gets big enough it will attract some large donors or sponsors, or maybe it will just be another reminder to Joss and co. of how much we loved their work and how much it meant to us, and the money in all likelihood will end up going to Equality Now, Whedon's favorite charity that all the profits of the annual charity screenings of Serenity go to.
Yeah, RoboCop statue, great. As a person from the Detroit area, my impression of RoboCop is that it was an attempt to graft the ideal of an Aryan LAPD officers keeping minorities in line to the Motor City. It doesn't reflect the reality of Detroit, especially since after the riots most of the police department became black.
Paul, no one paying attention should tell you that you must give up your life and become a humanitarian in order to avoid hypocrisy, because you are not suggesting others forego their chosen or actual vocations and instead help others full time. That is not your argument, and so, the rebuttal you have offered misses the point. Instead, you appear to suggest money should not be spent in arguably frivolous ways when there are more ethically praise-worthy causes to be pursued. However, unless you've spent *all* your discretionary funds on the most worthwhile and effective charities available (and never on something like, oh, I don't know, a Netflix subscription), you're in a poor position to complain about others putting *some* of their money towards less than your picture of ethically maximum & optimum ends.
Were the goal of these non-profits to make the world a better place in the same way that building wells in areas without clean water do, then you'd at least be able to argue that they aren't using their money efficiently or effectively towards their desired ends, but that's not what's going on here, on your side or theirs.
Meanwhile, I have to wonder why you're going after Internet geeks here, and not those spending on churches, cable companies, sub-optimal humanitarian charities, or less dorky entertainment. What's your thing with nerds online? Do you find them exceptionally objectional, or is it just your main area of interest? If the latter, should you really be telling these guys to find better hobbies?
Anyway, did you seriously declare Firefly to be as good as Mad Men? You had to be trolling, right? Makes me wonder how you'd rate your low budget, sci-fi comedy against The Wire.
Paul, I could write a ten-page paper on why Firefly is nowhere near as well-crafted a piece of contemporary fiction as either Mad Men or Breaking Bad -- and it would have nothing to do with genre.
That aside, fans are crazy. The Firefly nonprofit is almost as good as the time one of the biggest Harry Potter fanfiction archives tried to win a $25k grant competition, with other competitors in it to keep music programs in schools, art programs for homeless kids, etc., to buy themselves new servers.
That's the wrong argument. You're not telling how people should change the world. You're telling people how to spend their time & money. Your job now is to debunk the argument that you shouldn't be the person to make everyone else's decisions for them.
Please, be my guest.
Will we ever get our show back? Probably not, but you don't join a cause because it's a sure bet. Hell, maybe if this gets big enough it will attract some large donors or sponsors, or maybe it will just be another reminder to Joss and co. of how much we loved their work and how much it meant to us, and the money in all likelihood will end up going to Equality Now, Whedon's favorite charity that all the profits of the annual charity screenings of Serenity go to.
There will always be better causes than any given cause, but you can't let that suck the joy out of life.
Were the goal of these non-profits to make the world a better place in the same way that building wells in areas without clean water do, then you'd at least be able to argue that they aren't using their money efficiently or effectively towards their desired ends, but that's not what's going on here, on your side or theirs.
Meanwhile, I have to wonder why you're going after Internet geeks here, and not those spending on churches, cable companies, sub-optimal humanitarian charities, or less dorky entertainment. What's your thing with nerds online? Do you find them exceptionally objectional, or is it just your main area of interest? If the latter, should you really be telling these guys to find better hobbies?
Anyway, did you seriously declare Firefly to be as good as Mad Men? You had to be trolling, right? Makes me wonder how you'd rate your low budget, sci-fi comedy against The Wire.
Mr. Paul Constant, you are a very mean man.
Nothing to see here. It's just someone playing to type.
"No lotto or liquor for welfare! And why all the gold, poor people?!"
Stay classy, Constant.
Please. Don't embarrass us all.