Life
-
Posts
3,829 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Life
-
-
On 2/20/2017 at 10:27 PM, Phoenix Wright said:
uhhhhh
'new atheists'? wtf does that mean? also, that argument doesn't make any sense
It's the title for essentially the current round of atheists who follow Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.
As for the argument not making sense, I invite you to actually watch some of Peterson's material. It's fascinating and on YouTube. -
I've spent a lot of time listening to Dr. Jordan Peterson and the New Athiests (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris...) and I realized something.
Hitch and company have it all wrong. They view religion in the style that fundamentalists do. It's either scientifically true or false. That's the wrong way to look at it. Religion is true but not on the same level as scientific truth. It's more of an amalgamation of archetypes that are retold over the years. Peterson refers to it as "meta-truth".
Quite fascinating, really. -
On 2/5/2017 at 11:39 PM, blah the Prussian said:
Aight, question. You have been speaking out in favor of allowing Fascists, who wish, in some cases, for genocide, free speech, which I disagree with. Now, though, you appear to be advocating for the censorship of professors on the left who are advocating for something as bad. For what it's worth, I agree with this, but this seems rather inconsistent.
I'm against public funding for universities that employ professors who advocate for violence against half of population. What I'm pointing out is that there is a genesis point for why the left is going violent and it's not necessarily just because of President Trump.
-
Serious question, Raven.
Can you not say "well shit, these people are acting in terrible faith, we need to cut out this cancer from our movement"? Or is it more important to respond every time with "BUT THE RIGHT!!!"?
This is a cancer in your movement. Are you going to admit it or not? Because it sounds like you are apologizing for them.
-
On 2/3/2017 at 9:19 PM, Lord Raven said:
We've repeatedly responded to you on this. Are you here to soapbox or are you here to toss labels out and play the victim? I know you're not here to discuss. In either case, since I have faith that you will, if nothing else, try to defend your pride, then I will report you for soapboxing if you say shit like this again.
I was simply quoting one of the graffiti paintings which had this quote (minus the comrade) with the hammer and sickle beside it. We could also talk about the "Kill Trump" graffiti from the riot.
There's also the case that this kind of reasoning is being taught at universities. For example, one person who was part of the crowd who claims to have beaten someone turns out to be staff at UC Berkeley.
My point (while being a bit snarky) is to point out that Antifa are dangerous thugs and a good portion of them are pseudo-Marxists/Communists. Check out George Ciccariello-Maher. He's a professor at Drexel University and he's a Communist (he calls himself one) in favour of shutting down anyone who disagrees with him by force. There are professors who are teaching kids that terrorism (in the dictionary definition of the word) is acceptable.
-
14 minutes ago, Yojinbo said:
I hate them too. As it if wasn't bad enough that they're a horde of violent crackpots, they're also casting a slur on an otherwise righteous cause. It's a huge disservice to all the people who are actually legitimately worried about the increasing tolerance towards fascist tendencies these days. Fuck those idiots, they're only making matters worse.
Liberals get the bullet too, comrade.
They're the communists who would gladly lynch anybody who disagrees with them in a public setting. One person has told me unironically that the gulags should be brought back into use. -
2 hours ago, Tryhard said:
It's around 50%, but I think what's more interesting is the statistics of how many days it took to reach a majority (50%+) disapproval rating compared to the other recent presidents.
Reagan: 727 Bush I: 1336 Clinton: 573 Bush II: 1205 Obama: 936 Trump: 8
When the legacy media routinely refers to the man as "the second coming of Hitler", it's not surprising.
As for Sunwoo, I care because America is the world hegemon and American policy affects the world. And I would prefer to see leftists not ruin the greatest empire to ever exist. -
Hmm, let's see the amount of autistic screeching.
*checks*
Oh man, more salt here than in the Dead Sea. This is great. The next four years are going to be amazing while the God King Emperor sits on the throne.
On a serious matter, I (as an Israeli) cannot travel to 16 different countries. Full ban. Not even temporary. Just no. That's foreign policy. Deal with it.
Also, we should all be praising Trump for killing the TPP and preserving Westphalian sovereignty. Had he not done that, the whole world order would have slowly changed to where governments are accountable to corporations rather than the people they serve. I'm still working my way through the TPP but the world dodged a bullet on this one.
Anyway, time to go back to my new mining operation.
-
13 hours ago, Lord Raven said:
You said that Trump will not be bad for the USA, but then you said that people need to band together to fight authoritarianism in the west. Which is it? How is Trump going to not be bad for the USA if he's part of the authoritarianism you hate?
Or, is it because he's a republican that he's alright and that the left is not?
[citation needed]
I've said multiple times that I'd really like to criticize Trump. The problem comes with some of the ridiculous shit that comes out against him that I have to defend him simply because he is telling the truth on some of those matters. Like the fact that there is still no evidence to be shown that Trump is under Russia's thumb aside from the CIA saying so.
I have problems with Trump. A $1 trillion dollar infrastructure plan would be a great place to start. I'm not a party person but repeating things like that is apparently not enough.
My point is that Trump isn't the problem. The problem is the authoritarian wing of the left which is growing and the soon to be authoritarian wing of the right. If you want to continue to make the a "wonderful caring left vs. evil heartless right" issue, I'll be happy to laugh when your authoritarians go after you. Remember, can't spell g_lag without "U".
As for more violence on the left, take a look at the race riots. Take a look at the inauguration and the Antifa. Or the WikiLeaks emails which flat out stated that the Clinton Campaign hired people to instigate violence at Trump rallies during the election cycle. Or maybe we can talk about Islamic terror apologizing from the left. Or how about the riot outside Milo's University of Washington speech where even a Progressive friend of mine said that he was scared for his life from the protesters against (he was a hardline Sanders supporter and still is) before and after someone got shot. Where would you like to start? -
2 minutes ago, Augestein said:
I don't think a few comments by a few people on twitter and FB should mean that it's commonplace to endorse violence. Most of the time on the Internet, when people say "good," for something bad happening to someone, it's just another way of saying "I have no sympathy."
Probably when one side is completely and utterly crushed to lopsided numbers to the point where the other group is silenced either by force or just drowned out by other voices.
It doesn't matter which side it's from. If you believe it's wrong, it's wrong. The origins of it don't matter. This nonsense of left and right is how this chaotic mess has gone on for as long as it is, because rather than trying to find a solution to it, people are pointing fingers at "some other side."
I don't know what you're looking at but hundreds of people comment on any given NYT article. And that's just the NYT.
Honestly, I think that the time for fighting between the principled right and principled left is over. If you believe in the general freedoms of free speech and expression, we can put the petty shit of abortion/economics/minor social issues to the side for the moment just to band together. I think Conservatives and Liberals need to form a temporary alliance in order to stamp out this wave of authoritarianism that is sweeping the Western world. That's where I sit. -
Just now, Tryhard said:
That's right, and personally I would prefer verbal response after he speaks his laughable ideas, but I can't really say I feel any sympathy for him either. Still, he seems more or less like the guy who would enact the ethnic cleansing that he believes in, if he had the power. And in fascist societies in the past that can happen very quickly.
Yes but it is now commonplace to endorse this violence. The FB comment section on the NYT opinion piece was applauding the use of violence against Spencer. And that's the problem.
Now the question is "with who does it stop?". I've been called a fascist by someone I went to school with. Should I be silenced by violence?
Authoritarianism is bad on both sides. But right now, it's a lot more prevalent on the left and it's naïve to think otherwise. -
6 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:
why?
Because Antifa factions in Europe are essentially Trotskyists. And they are not above using violent measures to achieve their means.
I don't think President Trump will be that bad for the USA. He might even be OK. But when you (not you specifically, just in general) spend over a year convincing yourself that anyone you disagree with is a Fascist (regardless of whether that is truth or not), then resorting to violence in order to "stop fascism" becomes justifiable because you have determined yourself to be morally good while they are morally evil.
The Spencer incident is a great litmus test. I think he's a terrible person but all he has right now are ideas and opinions. He doesn't determine policy at any level. So resorting to physical violence in order to silence him or even condoning that violence because "he's a Nazi" is in direct opposition to the idea of free speech. I disagree entirely with what he says. I'll be happy to discredit his arguments in the public sphere and show why white ethno-nationalism is terrible. But as per the idea of freedom of speech, I'm going to defend his right to say his ideas without being attacked.
Plus, physically attacking him is only going to justify his case in his opinion. He will (and is, if I'm not mistaken) use the victimhood narrative that has been cultivated by leftists and use that to his advantage to say that whites are under attack. That will almost undoubtedly raise support for his opinions which we can all agree is not a good thing. Using violence to silence him is self-defeating.
-
Everyone always throws out excuses for Russia and China. But nobody ever comments on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.
Pol Pot literally had people killed for wearing glasses. -
My biggest problem is with the Antifa rioters. I saw the Communist hammer and sickle out on signs during the riots and that worries me a lot more than anything that Trump might do.
I would like to criticize Trump but between him and the Antifa, I'll take Trump hands down. -
Yeah, typed Rand instead of Ron. But they're both excellent.
-
On 1/20/2017 at 7:51 AM, forsety said:
I don't agree with the Death Penalty system, but I do understand why some people are are all for it; especially, those who have lost loved ones.
I think the U.S. spends way more money on the death penalty than keeping people alive (if I got my facts right, I think it's right, though). I would much prefer the people to have life sentences in prisons rather than accidentally killing someone who didn't deserve it.As I said before, the issue with the death penalty is the lack of expediency. If expediency wasn't an issue, the question would then come down to "is it moral or not".
For me, I believe that some crimes are so evil that they simply rip the moral fabric of society and require us to do something incredibly unpleasant in order to heal that wound.
-
My position is this: No Chong and hopefully Bernier. That's in a nutshell.
Rand Paul is the father of Libertarians. And he's an isolationist, not pro-military intervention.
-
So we're deep into the CPC leadership race and after the French debate (3/5), Kevin O'Leary decides to join. Shocker...
If anyone here is paying attention to this race, it's fascinating. This is exactly like the Republican race of last year but... our version of Rand Paul is currently leading (Maxime Bernier). And thank god for that. The guy has been meme'ing his way to victory and I keep sharing those memes to Lauren Southern. If she backs him (and I think she will because she's a Libertarian), Bernier gets a huge boost and might just win the race. And if he does that, Trudeau is gone in two years.
Put down your thoughts about the race. I'll post a little thing about each candidate later. This is gonna get really fun. -
You still don't get my point because you didn't actually respond to the idea that these are stories that are retold over thousands of years rather than a few thousand days. The closest you came to even contesting that point was Sherlock Holmes and that's barely a hundred years old. Compare it to St. George and the Dragon (nearly 900 years). But whatever.
I will say this, though. Thanks for admitting that not being tribalistic is an ideology. -
I disagree. There is no denying that old tales and myths have influence, but there's no way to say whether or not Zootopia (I say that one specifically because things like Frozen and Big Hero 6 are already based on other stories) won't be another new story that lasts. All stories start somewhere, right? Do you think the creator of Sherlock Holmes thought it was going to be so successful and last for so long when it was created? I doubt it. On top of that, there's plenty of examples in film history where the telling of an old, beloved tale just simply falls flat on its face and doesn't make it. Staying purely within the realm of Disney, look at the Great Mouse Detective and the Hunchback of Notre Dame. One is based on the aforementioned Sherlock Holmes, but is it considered one of Disney's all-time best? Not really, no. It's still considered good of course, but it isn't talked about or remembered as fondly. The same can be said of Hunchback, it's based on what's considered a classic story, but is it still remembered and talked about as one of Disney's all-time best? Again, no not really. In contrast to that, look at 101 Dalmatians, that movie came out in 1961 and was based on a 1956 novel. I'm sorry, but five years is not nearly enough time for that story to have been considered an old classic! Yet look at the film, it is consistently considered one of Disney's all-time best, outdoing Mouse Detective and Hunchback.
Now, looking at the facts in just the film industry as a whole, you cannot deny that Zootopia has been wildly successful. It grossed over one billion dollars worldwide and was the 3rd highest-grossing movie of 2016, and it's become the 25th highest-grossing movie of all time. And it isn't just kids liking it, it's adults too! It has been consistently praised by critics and film viewers alike, it was chosen by the American Film Institute as one of the top ten films of 2016, and it's already started winning awards, including the Golden Globe for Best Animated Feature Film the Critic's Choice for Best Animated Feature! There's a whole list of other awards it has both won and been nominated for you can look up. People like this film. They really, really like it, it's not going away and it's not being forgotten. And going back into the realm of purely Disney...again, people really like this film. The only Disney films that have been talked about as much as Zootopia in the last ten years are Frozen and maybe Princess and the Frog. It's going down as one of Disney's best all-time films, it's not going away and it's not being forgotten. And then look at Princess and the Frog, that film came out in 2009 and people are still talking about it! Wreck-It Ralph? Big Hero 6? Okay, yeah, I can see them going the way of Mouse Detective. But Zootopia? The Princess and the Frog? Frozen? No way.
It seems like you're completely missing the point.
It's about the archetypes that echo within human history. As I stated "the once great dying king" is one. Another one is "the great mother of Chaos". These stories have existed since the creation of writing.
I find it disingenuous that you compare that to movies that are less than a generation old and say "no, it's about how successful the movie was at the time". That's not how it works. You can't just make up a story and expect it to resonate for thousands of years.
Let me give you a reason why Zootopia won't survive a generation. Humans are tribal creatures. We understand this from both history and the fact that chimps (our closest biological match) are very tribal. The concept of "accepting people for who they are no matter what" is a very recent idea (we're talking 20th century) and I don't think it will stand the test of time because certain cultures will always seem barbaric to other cultures. Western culture is barbaric in Islamist eyes and vice versa as an example (trust me, I can give you hundreds that exist right now). But as opposed to taking the Shaka Zulu route of just killing off that opposing tribe down to the last child, we have entered a new period where we try to accept people for who they are.
The problem here is that Zootopia is not creating an archetype that resonates through human history. It does the opposite, in fact. It attempts to debunk the tribal notion of humans which is flat out contradictory to human nature and history. It preaches for an ideal society rather than an internal understanding of yourself.
Watch the video I linked in my first post. It's very interesting and it might answer some of your questions.
Frey, I'm just ignoring you.
-
I disagree entirely on both. But to have that conversation, we'd need to move it into Serious Discussion and I'd probably get called a racist at some point which would defeat the entire purpose of the discussion.I just want to remind everyone to keep it civil and respect everyone's opinion.
I think the Princess and the Frog has the best chance in terms of survival due to the original story being around a lot longer. The other movies, as much as I enjoy them now, can be dated in about 10 years.
Zootopia might stick around as it deals with a huge problem of racial issues. People might want to show their kids the movie to teach them at a young age to accept everyone.
-
I will bet anything that those movies are forgotten entirely within 10 years, if not sooner.I don't think you're giving those movies their due credit...
By contrast, The Lion King is 25 years old and the underlying story behind it is over 2000 years old.
This doesn't mean that they're not good movies. But they don't match up to myths that are retold over many years by different cultures.
It's archetypes like the "once great king" or "the redemptive hero who slays the dragon" that will survive because that is part of our culture.
Another example I like to use that is similar to Sleeping Beauty is a video game like Farcry 3. Same concepts, especially when you consider all the Alice in Wonderland allegories (which work back into central concepts of order vs. chaos). Our culture is influenced by the past and religious ideas more than people want to admit.
-
Eh... short answer would be "No".
Long answer goes like this and I'm tying this back to an incredible lecture that I heard by Dr. Jordan Peterson at UofT.
There is a reason why over 25 years later, films like The Lion King, Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty are still part of our daily lexicon. It's because they told the story right (similar to why Harry Potter worked so well too and you can see parallels between HP and SB, especially in Book 2).
Take The Lion King as an example. It is strikingly similar to the Egyptian myth of soveriegnty between Osiris, Horus and Set. Osiris (Mufasa) is the old and once great king who is now willfully blind. His evil brother Set (Scar) plots behind his back and ends up killing his brother in order to take over the kingdom. Horus (Simba) is Osiris's son and after growing up, returns back home to fight Set and eventually beats him. Osiris is then enshrined as the king of the Underworld or in Mufasa's case, immortalized in the stars.
Striking parallels, eh? It's more because it's a retelling of old myths. Same idea with Sleeping Beauty (fighting the dragon of chaos to restore order and rescue the virgin). By the way, the connection between Sleeping Beauty and Harry Potter 2? The hero (Harry Potter) goes underneath the castle to fight the dragon (the basilisk) and rescue the virgin (Virginia Weasley). It's also the story of St. George and the Dragon. Or Pinocchio (this one I'll link underneath with a video by Dr. Peterson since his explanation of it is mind-blowing).
Now back to the topic on hand. Is Disney experiencing a new Golden Age? Not if they have to create their own archetypes. Frozen worked because that is another one from ancient times if I'm not mistaken (first thought would probably link it to Norse mythology in some way). But Big Hero 6? Zootopia? Wreck-It Ralph? Hell, even The Princess And The Frog? History will forget those ones sooner than you think. But the three I mentioned? We haven't forgotten them for millennia; hard to believe that they will just die off.
Watch this all the way through. Dr. Peterson teaches a course called Maps of Meaning and puts his lectures online. Absolutely fascinating.
-
Appreciated. First time I've seen that and stats easily outweigh personal anecdote. Guess I'm mistaken.
General US Politics
in Serious Discussion
Posted · Edited by Comrade
So you believe that Trump actually hired hookers to piss on a bed in Russia a full 5.5 years before he decided to run for President because...? Because THAT is what Buzzfeed published and attempted to defend.
I know that we're all partisan hacks here but come on, man.
As for my opinion, I'd prefer that Trump just stop talking to all the media all together (includes Fox and Breitbart and pretty much everyone) and simply keep Tweeting. It drives people insane and maybe it'll teach the entire media complex how to do their jobs (you know, actually investigate shit). I love it.