I'm still very much in the grip of Dalek-mania -- printouts of my plans confirms that the Dalek bumps on the blueprints are exactly the same size as brass fasteners, which should make for even cooler faux Daleks -- but given the debate raging on at TAB's page concerning Superman and Spider-Man (which is better?), I figured I'd repost my comments on the matter here just so I can have them documented amidst my other online writings. First, however, a few more Dalek links...

Dalek cupcakes and Dalek cakes. Seriously.

Daleks featured in a pornographic film -- one that I'm desperately trying to find for download, though obviously more for the presence of the Daleks than the racier bits. Check out a few screencaps from the movie here (warning: NSFW!). Dalek plunger appendages are the perfect shape for breast groping, don't you think?

Anyway, there's nothing new regarding the remarks below if you've already read them at TAB's, but one of the major points of the argument (and probably the only remotely interesting thing about Superman) is that whereas Spider-Man et all are "truly" their secret identities, Superman is "truly" Superman. That is, whereas other characters don masks to become superheroes, Superman dons his mask in order to become more normal. I believe a similar sentiment was echoed in one of the Kill Bill volumes. I argued that this is actually not the case -- see below -- but upon thinking more about it I think the difference in opinion may have to do with the different versions of Superman that has been presented to different generations. For example, the bumbling Clark Kent of the earlier media was indeed an act to mask Superman's true self, but the Clark Kent that I'm familiar with from "Lois & Clark" and the Superman animated series is a capable, relaxed guy: Clark simply being himself without having to take to the skies and bat away descending meteors. More on that can be found here, if anyone's interested in Superman's identity.

And now, the comments: (more...)

I know, I know -- enough with the Daleks, right? WELL, I happened to find this link -- The Ultimate Dalek Factory -- yesterday evening and just about lost my mind. A BONA-FIDE PATTERN FOR CONSTRUCTING A HOMEMADE DALEK!!! Perfect. I haven't made one yet, though, since the pattern was kind of crude-looking and needed a bit of fixing up IMHO... so after spending hours and hours and hours and hours with my nose several millimeters away from the LCD screen, I ended up with this -- note that I've mirrored it so that the plans can be glued back to back, such that one ends up with a "pure" surface without losing the necessary information for putting the blasted thing together. You will note from the filename, by the way, that this set of plans has been designated "9b", suggesting (rightly, I might add) that I have made a whole bunch of sets of plans for Daleks with different color schemes. I haven't actually constructed any of them yet -- at some point this week I'm thinking I'll go buy some of that glossy photo paper for the occasion, though I may try making a test one beforehand to see how it goes. In the meantime, you're welcome to try your hand at this standard one. 🙂

Ultimately, however, I think the best homemade Dalek will result from a combination of this and previous methods. A la my second homemade Dalek -- at least for certain color schemes -- brass fasteners (or brass fasteners colored black with a sharpie) can be used for the Dalek bumps on the body. The limbs and eyestalk should be made of something less flat in order to preserve the more 3D qualities of the model. (As you can tell, I'm quite fond of using screws for the eyestalk.) Hey, speaking of 3D Daleks, check out these Lego designs.

Yes, I am totally in the grip of the Daleks' power at the moment. And why shouldn't I be? These things are badass! There should be Dalek-flavored ice cream.

I bet it would taste like pistachio.

Putting those brass fasteners in was incredibly tedious. (more...)

(more...)

So I had a somewhat interesting dialogue with my sister last night. I don't remember exactly how it began, but it quickly became a discussion of racism. I'm fairly certain that I brought up the term, whereupon my sister objected to its usage -- "racism", she said, entails by definition a pronounced hatred for the object of one's racist feelings, whereas she felt that "stereotyping" more properly corresponded to the position that I was describing. She admitted that in most cases racism is a consequence of stereotyping -- for example, Person A believes a certain stereotype about a group and therefore hates that group -- but that stereotypes are not necessary to justify racist beliefs because the primary criterion for racism is hated -- and hatred can occur without justification.

In my view, however, all stereotypes concerning "race", insofar as people largely believe them to obtain in all cases, constitute racism. For example, even if Person B believes that all persons of Asian descent are fantastic at math and harbors no ill will towards Asians as a result (Person B may even enthusiastically seek out an Asian tutor for his multivariable calculus course), I would maintain that Person B holds a racist belief because Person B believes that "race" is a necessary determinant of certain personality traits and individual strengths, thereby alleging that attention to the color of a person's skin or his/her apparent ethnic background is an effective way of learning more about him/her. (In most modern cases, the emphasis is placed on "culture" rather than "race" -- but given that most people who make these arguments appear to believe that "race" and "culture" are necessarily linked, that does not resolve the difficulty.)

So much like a fundamentalist believes in the value and worth of various fundamental tenets, I use the term "racist" to describe someone who believes in the value and worth of "race" as a means of categorizing individuals. For example, I would argue that even a relatively empty statement like "I hate all black people" -- even if this hatred is unjustified even in the mind of the speaker -- is racist, not because it voices hatred but because it asserts that the color of a person's skin is sufficient motivation for responding to that individual in any predetermined fashion. And though hateful attitudes and harmful effects are not necessary criteria for racist statements, I maintain that all such statements are necessarily damaging because they devalue the worth of individuals and preclude the possibility of a great many personal relationships that rely upon mutual understanding between individuals. But I've said this before, yes? (more...)