tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40217246159519998422024-03-03T18:26:28.645-06:00DON'T TRYUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger421125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-58738434850143421692023-08-15T01:48:00.007-05:002023-08-15T01:50:09.437-05:00Half-Baked Hot Takes™ The true propellant of climate change in this "hottest summer on record" is Uber Eats and other ride programs.<br /><br />The physically lazy receive all the criticism, but are part of a triad including the intellectually lazy and emotionally lazy. Don't speak unless you've mastered all three.<br /><br />The overlooked duty of police isn't direct effectiveness rather the threat of arrest or inconvenience. Without this ready possibility, why not crime.<br /><br />Homelessness isn't impossible to solve just because there's no money in it. Anyone can claim homelessness by walking out their front door, exponentially increasing demand. People in power likely realize it's a "moral hazard" if you let someone plot a small shed without taxes, others won't want to pay either. It's closely tied the the failure of mental health services. All these are short sighted, though. A just-comfortable-enough studio would provide a baseline stability people need. The tax is likely a wash versus the negative effects of having people on the streets.<br /><br />As someone said, the trans hysteria is the "Satanic panic" of our time. Failed hysteria in political ads in Michigan proved this. What's more scary? Just ordinary men. If people don't view transwomen as women, certainly they instinctively find "effeminate men" less threatening.<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-71806718403289326552023-07-07T23:04:00.001-05:002023-07-07T23:34:29.614-05:00The adrenochrome trade is real 100% confirmedAdrenochrome is fun to joke about and to consider but it occurred to me it's 100% real even in its exaggerated, non-scientific street form.<br /><br />Let's do a rational run-down:<br /><br /> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFRXn70vCx4-ir3F7DejfxxtyrCjpvzzdweguV31Rif_tjcYLiHPhcP2tfC_iquSLD-hTq0HBgAYrB5Q9nPYvACMlGib_pDIMbFPFLiePbd3iTBGQv8bwq_H661m7kKbLXeh_Uz_Kmq_a9SvyD0ECyTIASfx74rYxC2SRpBxKHz5VHj4hmr4H6nFwISvKI/s4000/Adrenochrome.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title=""><img border="0" data-original-height="4000" data-original-width="3000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFRXn70vCx4-ir3F7DejfxxtyrCjpvzzdweguV31Rif_tjcYLiHPhcP2tfC_iquSLD-hTq0HBgAYrB5Q9nPYvACMlGib_pDIMbFPFLiePbd3iTBGQv8bwq_H661m7kKbLXeh_Uz_Kmq_a9SvyD0ECyTIASfx74rYxC2SRpBxKHz5VHj4hmr4H6nFwISvKI/s320/Adrenochrome.jpg" title="" width="240" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">An adrenochrome ampoule<br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Is organ harvesting real? Yes.<br />Do cannibals exist? Yes. Armie Hammer can attest to this.<br />Do people consume everything? Yes.<br /><br />People
consume every odd concoction on earth under the belief it is a miracle
cure for sexual stamina, erectile dysfunction, beauty, youth, or cures
for illness. People believe rhino horns provide erections and animal
suffering makes food taste better. <br /><br />Now, keep in mind, there only
needs to be one regular adrenochrome paying user on planet earth for
the adrenochrome trade to be real. Even if it was a myth and didn't
exist before, certainly by now there's someone insane enough to believe
it. <br /><br />Are the rich willing to buy anything? Yes.<br />Are some of the poor willing to do anything for money? Yes.<br /><br />Listen to the way people talk about placenta and stemcells. If
we're already willing to accept people are okay with murder for
an icy new set of lungs from an organ harvester, seems like a complete
waste to throw out perfectly good adrenochome. Even as a
non-cannibal with no interest in adrenochome, food waste is a great sin. So if someone were to say to you, "Hey man, I'm out of the blackmarket trade and I'm throwing these away, do you want them?" You take that six-pack of freshly harvested adrenaline glands<span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc">—</span></span>as you're currently boycotting Bud Light<span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc">—</span></span>and become the life of the block party.<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-58529727258875330132023-06-22T21:59:00.000-05:002023-06-22T21:59:14.281-05:00I love a good villain<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4nUMvlQa7c22YERBdxR-xhrQIUmH5m7q7ppitWQTUtAK8FUelxe2TlgVzQoWN4wAQFYyK_ttsqf5YClGUO49FCo1uaaGjo6_pbmuYpw_cvd8OzoHQYAnYgOgp8zGPvMAS-uekWOkJDQpjerrxkjeZluT9XPyj62v7H0gnVc9AFADINfgHh9_ozSScTnSM/s1920/villain_villainy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" title=""><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4nUMvlQa7c22YERBdxR-xhrQIUmH5m7q7ppitWQTUtAK8FUelxe2TlgVzQoWN4wAQFYyK_ttsqf5YClGUO49FCo1uaaGjo6_pbmuYpw_cvd8OzoHQYAnYgOgp8zGPvMAS-uekWOkJDQpjerrxkjeZluT9XPyj62v7H0gnVc9AFADINfgHh9_ozSScTnSM/w640-h360/villain_villainy.png" width="640" /></a></div><p>I love a good villain. They can and do and should exist. The only
problem we face is there are not enough of them. Disagree? Because for
all their faults, villains break the facade. Villains poke at the myth
that humans are "innately good," which is merely a mistaken assumption
for the reality that cooperation with others aids self-preservation. A
common complaint with writing is that villains are almost always more
interesting. The problem is good and purity are simple. Meanwhile,
villains have horrendous self-justifications and traits but with it,
they have a few good points. There's entire online communities dedicated
to the idea that Thanos did nothing wrong. We're familiar with the yin
and yang. Most know the second most popular book after The Bible. <br /><br /><b>Technology: more dangerous then, or now</b><br /><br />I
despise Stephen Pinker's simplistic, forward-looking, forced optimism
he maintains to sell books. Yes, because of technology, things are
people more safe and predictable on a day-to-day basis. Because of
cameras and the easy travel of information, it's harder to get away with
things. Serial killers like so many other things are all but retired
thanks to advances in technology. The cult leader is an endangered
species because now you can double check their claims of a space-gate
created by aliens. Jim Jones killed over 900 people convincing
them to drink cyanide-poisoned Flavor Aid. It's reasonable to assume
this type of crime would be difficult to pull off in the era of
cellphones and lightning quick media dissemination. It's easy to draw a
conclusion that the world is made safer by this proliferation of
technology. This may not be the case.<br /><br />Imagine this as a thought
experiment. I will use two examples to please both sides of the unhinged
political isles. Antivaxxers: imagine a media personality shilling
minimally-tested vaccine use to the masses to cause harm and/or for
personal gain. Provaxxers: imagine a media personality advocating
against vaccine use to the masses to cause harm and/or for personal
gain. Now keep in mind even the most sound science is contested and
repeated proof is integral to the process. New science by its nature
will be hotly contested and more so if its in light of a global health
crisis where time is paramount. Also keep in mind in the U.S. as example
trust in government institutions has been around 20% for a long time
(Pew Research), this is not the domain of a fringe political party, it
represents the vast majority. In this environment, what is the equation
for how much damage one media personality can cause? I imagine it's not quantifiable. But if thousands can be willingly convinced to poison
themselves with detergent as happened with the "Tide Pod challenge," I
believe a motivated person with a platform of millions and a good enough
narrative could outdo the mere 900 deaths of Jonestown by multiples. <br /><br /><b>Speech: more dangerous consolidated, or free</b><br /><br />Free
speech I believe is the most important thing to secure but I also
understand the trepidation against it, and the hysterical headlines
associated with it. Sure, people kill people, and guns more efficiently,
but the propaganda of say, "stopping the spread of Communism" is what
sold the ideological motivation to do it at a mass scale. The
proliferation of the internet is free speech incarnate. If you
were born into the ruling class and powers that be, free speech should
terrify you. Why wouldn't it, it means upheavals, it means any injustice
that created your comfort may be exposed, and the more well-off you
are, the more you're under the microscope of the down-trodden and dispossessed. Also, because of you're privilege, it's harder to see their
point of view, or how you too could benefit from a more balanced
society. Think of it this way: would you rather be the richest man in a
war-torn country with no running water, or an average man in an
apartment with WiFi. Kim Jung-un may run his own country, but I imagine
most people from western countries wouldn't trade into his poor infrastructure, isolationist position if they are even moderately wealthy.
<br /><br />The internet provided a balancing and reshuffling of power.
More accurately, though, it came in conjunction with the cellphone, its
pictures and videos, and the ease of data distribution. You can mark the
beginning in 2007-8 with the release of the first iPhone and social
media platform Facebook inching closer to critical mass. In November
2006 comedian Michael Richards went on a racist tirade that was recorded
on a low-quality cellphone video, sparking likely the first instance of
"cancel culture" as we know it today. With this technology rose content
creators and their own personal brands each with their armies of fans.
The strength of the internet, by some, can be seen as a weakness. With
podcasts, blogs, and streamers, everyone has access. Even the nastiest
personalities have a contingency to make profit via crypto. This dynamic
causes discomfort and contention between different factions in the
largest social platform ever created, where people argue how to police
and vie for power while promoting themselves in what could aptly be
called an information war. <br /><br /><b>Alex Jones</b><br /><br />Alex Jones once famously and astutely
described himself with, "I'm kinda retarded." It's notable because
"retarded" itself as a word is on dividing line between what's proper and poor taste.
Alex Jones himself seems to be the battleground between appreciation
for free thought and ironic veneration versus censorship and fear for
speech to cause real world harm. What makes Alex Jones compelling is not
that he's crazy, the mentally ill screaming in a padded cell won't
sustain a crowd, it's that he's precisely half-crazy. When you're
half-crazy you have the unpredictability that makes you indefinitely
compelling. Here you have a figure who has undoubtedly caused harm in
the world that's quantifiable and by his own admission. The related matter is
how much importance we place on individual human agency. Perhaps Alex
through naming names triggered the pre-disposed to harass families of
Sandy Hook, but it does not seem intentional and does seemed informed by
his own mental illness. The fevered fight over words makes itself
apparent in the lawsuits. If there was criminal negligence on an aircraft
a payout per death would max at $500,000 on the high-end. The successful
suit against Jones for causing distress reached a verdict of about one
billion dollars, indicating to anyone of sane mind a failure of justice.<br /><br /><b>Ye</b><br /><br />Alex
didn't shy away from controversy even as his trials remain on-going, he
hosted Ye. The new mainstream liberal thought is there are
no benevolent billionaires, and billionaires shouldn't exist. If this is
true, they should love Ye. He rejected billionaire status, after all. I
recognize him as a villain but can't help but admire him. He did what
we all preach and espouse which is to shun money and material
possessions in the name of integrity and personal beliefs, it just so
happens many of his are reprehensible. He's a racist, a tragic figure, refreshingly honest. He trolled with intentionally inflammatory language
suggesting his love for Hitler and the Nazis, under the guise of
"loving everyone." Clearly, he's attention-seeking, amusing himself, and
to some degree believes anti-Semitic tropes. But his sin at the end of
the day is merely speaking his mind which contains incredibly ignorant insights. The ownership of
any hateful act he inspires, though, lies within that individual. Chris Brown
beat a beloved black artist and can still tour America, I doubt Ye the
same. Many with domestic violence charges rebound. George Floyd was exalted of horrendous crimes upon his death. Many people beat, kill,
steal, or sexually assault, and receive more empathy than a
man who's merely a wrong and outspoken bigot. <br /><br /><b>Fuentes</b><br /><br />During
Ye's downward spiral he kept in close touch with other undesirables.
One was Nick Fuentes, a hispanic white supremacist and self-professed
incel who is canceled by banks, on a no-fly list, and hosts a popular
show from his parent's basement. I find his unhinged, petty hatreds
compelling to listen to in small doses. Reviewer Roger Ebert once said,
“<i>The Birth of a Nation</i> is not a bad film because it argues for evil. It
is a great film that argues for evil.” There is an equal elegance for a
bad cause here. Nick is young, bright, charismatic and attuned to irony,
making a lot of his reprehensible beliefs memefied and digestible to
his audience. He reminds me of a young David Duke, the hate coursing
through his ice-cold veins not yet crystalized and deforming his face
into something demonic and unrecognizable. It will likely get there. Why
free speech is important is that bubbles like these will form
unchallenged and hence grow in strength and numbers to zero defense or counterargument. There's also a
cynicism in throwing these people aside, as total cancellation
suggestions that those wrong cannot change. When I see Nick I see a
projection of isolation, an island made by his own intelligence, too stunted by alienation or insecurity or sexual hangups. He reeks of someone who sought acceptance and mentorship, was met with rejection, and tripled down into an even more hateful mess for validation and attention.<br /><br /><b>Roger Stone, Stefan Molyneux, Martin Skhreli, and the rest</b><br /><br />Who could not love Roger Stone, the deranged drug-using bisexual, with Richard Nixon tattooed on his back, seething, shouting and grinding to teeth to nubs during the videos of his deposition? Or Molyneux, whose hate and insistence on IQ and genetics undermines the fact both his parents were institutionalized. Who could not admire Milo Yiannopoulos's feeble attempts to rage-bait himself back into relevance, or the way his legitimate intelligence tries to fight a worldview at odds with his sexuality. Who could not like Steve Bannon (#BanosDidNothingWrong) as he fights for the Little Man with his background in Harvard Business School and Goldman Sachs, using Bill Clinton's rape victims to undermine his wife's presidential aspirations, or trying to arbitrage digital assets in <i>World of Warcraft</i>. Who could not be charmed by the self-persecution and the unconscious self-parody of Andrew Tate. Who is not a fan of Martin Shkreli's attempt to make blatant the fraud that is generally par-the-course for American business.<br /><br /><b>The age of the villain </b><br /><br />Villains are important, and not only
because they are an inevitable bi-product of free society. A smart
citizen will understand "the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance." It's
a heavy cost, but preferable to the cost of a life suffering from a
total lack of spontaneity and surprise that a focus on safety and surveillance would entail<span><span>—</span></span>an ever-encroaching
movement where every aspect of life is tabulated, categorized, and rendered inert. The distinguishing element in my chosen villains, is they exhibit a form of honesty about their villainy, if not forthright then by the brazenness and transparency of their behavior. Villains exist no less predictably than predators in wilderness. Unlike those predators, they operate camouflaged and cloaked from discovery, in a trend that's slowly changing with the increased access of information. Not only is this preferable from a diagnostic perspective, the world is more interesting when it shows its cards.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-67611212950982814282023-02-11T23:45:00.000-06:002023-02-11T23:45:54.966-06:00The bet heuristic<p>Oftentimes when I'm struggling to determine personal belief about something I use a simple heuristic. It goes as follows: imagine the question or decision in the context of the bet. What are you betting? The entirety of your savings, skill, and material possessions. Your 401k, savings, your house and method of transport. You also lose the ability to readily and easily regain them, so you lose your skill. If you're a woodworker or pianist, you lose your hands. If you're a singer, you lose your voice. If you're a writer, your creative drive. You lose any ability for a bailout. Then, when you've accurately put yourself in this headspace, consider the initial question again.<br /><br />The use of this heuristic is it cuts through self-deception and self-denial. Many deny the moon landing, claim the earth is flat, or believe that Hillary Clinton eats children. I imagine most would change swiftly with this level of skin in the game, and perhaps even only with it as a perspective. Though it can be used for serious decision making, the absurd examples are more fun to talk about.<br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsgFeSC1Dj_-2qytcn7uQ5L8MGnA37kCeziPfLGL8KXAcHhlqrL3iTkr0PZjVcLXBujgU0okT3irXFthO1Nk-oV8sfoo6OkfCTpE45HvTf0NdEEeNYjiNwSyRYrcLmdnyut2qkzNYdL1zhD_TONs-seMNMhnyrcfrYZIcVaM4WXWrYX7dYe9kXgpYO5w/s907/bob%20lazar%20art.png"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsgFeSC1Dj_-2qytcn7uQ5L8MGnA37kCeziPfLGL8KXAcHhlqrL3iTkr0PZjVcLXBujgU0okT3irXFthO1Nk-oV8sfoo6OkfCTpE45HvTf0NdEEeNYjiNwSyRYrcLmdnyut2qkzNYdL1zhD_TONs-seMNMhnyrcfrYZIcVaM4WXWrYX7dYe9kXgpYO5w/w400-h281/bob%20lazar%20art.png" width="400" /></a><br /></p><p>I used this when considering the alien/Area 51 story of Bob Lazar. "Is Bob telling the truth?" Much of his story, personality, and demeanor lean toward credibility. He is intelligent. His rationale and reasons are well-constructed. It also helps if its an idea interesting, compelling, or personally fulfilling enough that I desire it to be true. When looked at it through the lens of the bet heuristic, the fuzzy, positive points get subdued and a more objective point of view emerges from the contrast. He has equally big issues against credibility, between sketchy college references, convenient migraines and running a whore house.</p><p>As compelling as his story is, I'd put money on Bob being a pathological liar. It's still an educated guess, but the heuristic helps me to my actual belief.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-57714137916139342852023-01-28T15:00:00.002-06:002023-01-28T15:25:38.206-06:00An analysis of There Will Be Blood (2007)<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL4QfrCamRjqO-uQwJ0pVIVOH2_Kjtzw0BtBGmrUPuI1n6q-__7x6FfOVPmq95R5LppLlhT-GhBFxwSM1aU2wKpc1PV1raH2OdcXFtl5oAdkzZcbO8bglzdX7J8w8_u19qP9zA-Gb3nDahyhE4_xtPeTw5Ipj2q94tn0elQUiS634A7-NsDHL2LF64Cg/s1920/there%20will%20be%20blood%20cinematography%20burning.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1920" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL4QfrCamRjqO-uQwJ0pVIVOH2_Kjtzw0BtBGmrUPuI1n6q-__7x6FfOVPmq95R5LppLlhT-GhBFxwSM1aU2wKpc1PV1raH2OdcXFtl5oAdkzZcbO8bglzdX7J8w8_u19qP9zA-Gb3nDahyhE4_xtPeTw5Ipj2q94tn0elQUiS634A7-NsDHL2LF64Cg/w640-h266/there%20will%20be%20blood%20cinematography%20burning.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><i>There Will Be Blood</i> is a largely tonal film, made great by its beautiful cinematography, soundtrack, performances, set design, direction, and creative use of lenses. It evokes the feel of a 1950s frontier film in look and
style but done expertly with modern technology. There's also a lot of
metaphorical elements and symbolism in the film (e.g. marking the baby's
forehead with oil) like is common with all the great writer-directors.<br /><br />Somehow,
P. T. Anderson beautifully photographs near-impossible scenes. In a
way the whole movie is a metaphor for a man making it alone. It begins
with the protagonist alone in a black hole maybe 50 foot deep, in
struggle and in toil, with nothing but tools and a few explosives. He
gets the gold. Only in scenes a few years later does he have a few more
men, paid workers and believers in his vision, as he experiments and
invents in ways to secure oil. <br /><br />He continues, with an orphaned
boy and a fake backstory to continue his career as an oil man. He has
finally made himself a success and is a man of considerable talent. His
con helps him succeed at the cost of isolating him. There's not too much
violence for a film titled <i>There Will Be Blood</i>, making you question its
title. Perhaps it's meant as ironic. There's no blood-ties. There's no
familiar familial comfort in Daniel's life. His son isn't his. When
Henry asks about his son's mother, he doesn't want to talk. He can't
bear to lie more, especially to his brother. He doesn't enjoy or desire to
explain himself in any capacity.<br /><br />Of course, his brother isn't
blood, either. Daniel has no connection to family. From not wanting to share any of his
motivations, he finally opens up with Henry about wanting to own the nice
house in the neighborhood, to have it, live in it, clean it, even raise
children in it. This is the first time in seemingly his adult life
Daniel has been honest with someone about his desires and moments later,
he sees through Henry's deception. Henry says he knew a man who claimed
to be Daniel's brother who died of tuberculous and used his story, there's a potential
subtext where Henry may have killed him. When confronted Henry claims to
be his friend and he's correct. The bond of them both being cons,
similar in intent and manner, binds them more strongly than blood could.
Daniel kills what is essentially his shameful shadow. <br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GBeiNFPNWQM" width="320" youtube-src-id="GBeiNFPNWQM"></iframe></div><br />Daniel
also has a lot in common with Eli, the false prophet. Daniel uses a
child to sell a vision, Eli uses a church. They both manipulate. Daniel
is better and can bully Eli. In turn, the rich, established oilmen try
to psyche Daniel out into selling his property. You can see Daniel's
insecurity as the self-made man from simpler means, as he grandstands
before them upon succeeding without them. The oilmen see Daniel as he
sees Eli, unworthy of their company, let alone as equal business
partners. <br /><br />Unlike <i>The Master</i> this story is more or less straight
forward. Daniel Plainview might just be pathological pride, drive, greed
and insecurity taken to its natural conclusion. He's chosen a life of
success even over moral values, which blocks out the possibility of any
love he may desire. Throughout the film there are cracks in his
highly-driven, hellbent exterior where what's left of his humanity breaks
through, often in his affinity for children.<br /><br />If I were to speculate
on why Plainview despises people, the first hint would be the irony of his
last name. We see him make his own way, alone. Nothing was given to him,
so why would he give any person a benefit of doubt. He sees simple people with
disdain because they lack his intelligence, they lack a capacity for
evil or to even see it as such. Daniel's dog-eat-dog mentality brings
him riches, but he's not intelligent enough to see it brings him misery
and a lack of closeness with those he loves. In the end all he has left
are material possessions and pride. Were Daniel to admit the truth of his
cons to himself the cost would be to see his life as empty, but also
endear himself to others and to an extent gain sympathy. <br /><br />The
only time Daniel is forced to confront himself is during the baptism
scene with Eli. Though Daniel views the church as a fraud, the
humiliation he experiences here is the closest he ever is to human. So
deep is his aversion to shame, when he enacts revenge toward the end of
the film he can punctuate his life with pride by proclaiming, "I'm finished!"<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-30397505626709170402023-01-24T12:52:00.004-06:002023-01-25T19:53:50.652-06:00Meaning in The Master (2012)<p><i></i></p><div style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7G5_xtVCr6H-vxeAMnNzcnMo2-bUG5EXfl1ZPRmOw0ATWpgww7QpuoVDv3iCj_jm1VaZJhH_Rv06LTXqZBt8eWHa2aeECril6cr4S6v3dgd8zgAhPfgwAoLg6ypfo7pUPiLZqD5-hIndzTMnYv6Z15Y6bH8NX3gC8miiJt7wRdLCw5Fk6AcbV7XGemQ/s1920/the%20master%20analysis%20criticism.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7G5_xtVCr6H-vxeAMnNzcnMo2-bUG5EXfl1ZPRmOw0ATWpgww7QpuoVDv3iCj_jm1VaZJhH_Rv06LTXqZBt8eWHa2aeECril6cr4S6v3dgd8zgAhPfgwAoLg6ypfo7pUPiLZqD5-hIndzTMnYv6Z15Y6bH8NX3gC8miiJt7wRdLCw5Fk6AcbV7XGemQ/w640-h360/the%20master%20analysis%20criticism.png" width="640" /></a></i></div><i>The Master</i> I've seen maybe six times since release in attempt to
understand it. My confused conclusion after the first few times was that
it's just not the masterpiece I wanted, instead a story of dogmatism not told well
enough. In an attempt to explain it now, I will almost certainly fail.
It's made by a world-class director, and while there are more
complicated films to dissect, that's mostly the result of them being bad
or purposely abstract. I'll try. <br /><p></p><p>Freddy is fresh from the war.
He's been killing the Japanese. He seems to have PTSD. He's a man who
belongs in motion. Still, his life lacks structure which may have
ultimately led him to the Armed Forces, and explains his attraction to
the Master. In a way the two central characters want what the other has.
Freddy is a feral animal. At the start we see him masturbating at the
beach, fighting, unable to hold down jobs, and injuring people with his
alcoholic concoctions. The alchemy of his alcoholic creations does
though show his potential, as does his eye for photography. <br /><br />He
forces himself to sea. It's essentially where be belongs. There he
finds the religious group of Lancaster Todd. Todd's attraction to Freddy is that they are polar opposites. Todd is
controlled, serious, well-mannered and weighs a lot, all unlike
Freddy. But as the Master asks Freddy personal questions, he takes a
liking to him right away, aided by a hint of recognition. I would
say Freddy represents his younger self, and that free, emotional,
reactionary spirit. He still yearns to be. Freddy wants guidance and not
to be in a bad place emotionally or in terms of addiction. <br /><br />Freddy
impresses Todd with his alcohol experiments that he says contain "secrets." It
makes sense they would drink these secrets before the personality test where
Freddy reveals finally to someone the deepest recesses of his soul, that
he denied the psychiatrists of the Armed Forces earlier in the
film. He talks about murder, incest, his one true love. By the end of
the scene, they go from characters familiar to each other to best
friends. That's one way to bond. <br /><br />From here you have the
framework of the religious belief of Lancaster Todd and his school of believers.
They provide the comfort of family but at a cost. You must remain
generally on the same page as Todd. Doesn't matter how far they go, how
extreme, with tales of time travel and past lives. You can never defect, your
service in the church is to grow it and exhibit it in lifelong commitment. Freddie is a loyal defender of the
cause, as referenced by his behavior toward the socialites in New York.<br /><br />Then
comes the curious party scene where Todd dances with women. The scene
cuts and returns with all the women unclothed. This is the second major
break from the rest which can be considered literal, the first being the reminiscing scenes with Doris. It's purposely ambiguous, but this
seems more an act of Freddy's imagination. There's no clothing scattered
about. It's way out of line for values of the time. It seems built for
the subtext of the next scene, where Todd's wife is masturbating him in
front their bathroom mirror. She seems to suggest she's okay with
secretive infidelity but not polygamy. In the next screen a drunken
Freddy is confronted, controlled, made to repeat pledges and slapped
with probably the same psychosexual intent as used on her husband. <br /><br />In
jail, Freddy, is told by Todd, "I'm the only one who likes you." And
it's true, Todd is the only person Freddy, a complex character, has
opened up to. The backbone of friendship is trust, and it's easier to
like someone when you know who they are. It's the same reason we like
dogs, they're not mysterious, their motivations and behaviors are readily
transparent. So far, Todd's psychoanalysis, however faulty, is the only
time Freddy has allowed himself to be him. Why wouldn't he trust Todd
who allowed him this release and who also holds many of the attributes
that he seeks. The prison scene may be the point in the movie where
their personalities are matched and equalized, as they're both reduced
to shouting animals.<br /><br />Freddy may have started questioning but
remains protege at this point in the film. It's clear for reasons of ego
and affection for Freddie, Lancaster makes him the focus of his
bizarre psychoanalytical experiments. Also because Freddy is the most willing subject, maybe not the
biggest believer but the one with the biggest desire to believe. Freddy
is made to behave like a monkey, jumping between a wooden wall and a
window to the outside world he can feel but not physically see. <br /><br />By
the time "Book Two" is released, you sense Freddy's influence on Todd's
work. Todd describes the secret now in less rigid terms, as "laughter."
He scolds a woman for questioning his choice to change his words from
"can you recall" to "can you imagine." Freddy seems to notice this
change in Dodd and it's not surprising during an exercise with the
group, his makeshift family, he drives off almost as if leaving the
nest. He's off to see Doris.<br /><br />Of course, his former love Doris is
gone, moved, and married with children. She was left heartbroken and
upon marriage is left as 'Doris Day,' an actress and singer of the time known for her beauty. In a way
this points to the undoing of Freddy's picturesque fantasy of the
perfect woman. He gets over her. He has a vision, or dream, or a real
life phone call in an empty theater and is encouraged to visit Dodd at his school in
England. <br /><br />Dodd and his wife attempt to gaslight Freddy in his
need for help and usefulness to the cause. He's not biting. Todd finally
submits and serenades Freddy in song in a final attempt to win his
favor and Freddy understands he's more powerful, even with less
structure, and no longer needs Master.
<br /><br />The movie ends with Freddy attempting Todd's psychoanalytical tricks during sex but he laughs and mentions his dick fell out.<br /><br /><b>Summary</b><br /><br />This movie is difficult because it's experimental and its design instinctual. It flourishes for the same reason it fails, its in uncharted territories and swinging for the fences. It's a joy to watch it work and not work. The main focus is belief and not only religious belief, also desire, and what is there before us in reality. If there's a central message it may not even be entirely against religious institutions as it might suggest, but instead to say, you have final say, and if its outlived its usefulness you can ride off into the distance. <br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-56995276711000193612023-01-11T21:45:00.011-06:002023-01-13T06:56:54.929-06:00Andrew Callaghan's content matches his accusations<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu5DFpdRtMx3T6d7QVWyFrxd7YsNKnV5OKaFy47SE78eXh67rS8QJx9nJ4IqSO4G2SG0aKYthZhw209vlKq6UByNy1jkfk9u502uN6mdBXjXcrLMA7OQquGT1t5zQUJvaXqS5RvFfDoyst68WmUJ5YUAB7l5hr1hXfuoqwnMQxXgcFzp0v1W6g9OH79Q/s1920/andrew%20callaghan%20callahan%20channel%205%20sexual%20assault.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu5DFpdRtMx3T6d7QVWyFrxd7YsNKnV5OKaFy47SE78eXh67rS8QJx9nJ4IqSO4G2SG0aKYthZhw209vlKq6UByNy1jkfk9u502uN6mdBXjXcrLMA7OQquGT1t5zQUJvaXqS5RvFfDoyst68WmUJ5YUAB7l5hr1hXfuoqwnMQxXgcFzp0v1W6g9OH79Q/w640-h360/andrew%20callaghan%20callahan%20channel%205%20sexual%20assault.png" width="640" /></a></div>Like many I was a fan of <i>Channel 5</i> (<i>All Gas No Brakes</i>) during its initial viral rise for its "man on the street" style interviews. It reminded me of previous, relatively minor e-celebs who have done similar work, or Dave Attell's <i>Insomniac </i>show in the early 2000s. It's a simple enough format. You point the camera at people who are a little fringe or absurd, listen objectively, and the content creates itself. If the interviewee is particularly nasty the camera provides enough rope for the person to hang themself, but generally these videos work because they're funny and humanize people despite their misguided beliefs or odd personality quirks. Part of the allure is the camp and cringe but with a balanced and empathic editing and editorializing this becomes forgivable. <br /><p></p><p>Something seemed off around early June of last year with<i> Channel 5</i>'s "NRA Conference" video, it started a pattern seldom-seen in the videos until around this time of excessive editorializing and ideological slant, with clips from both sides built to fit a narrative. It also includes Andrew Callaghan adding just himself to the screen and interjecting. The word "journalism" began being paraded around the community which was bizarre, then a <i>Hot Ones </i>interview on the Youtube recommend algorithm made me question if he is in large part a media-whore.<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyqv99Mf_GiZxzswRCMzp2ZIEJkqmmjdq8VVIGzWKs9MSt_eQlvK4-WZjQYAJ_UZWLM4MrEPeT6kyD97FaY4q_NKePqPNDbiaqKdaTmo3ltZFRF5_odKr1ljSCMpnbs6YBjmo4SaHahJWlSwYiL4NHeswd15o3IJnJJUpzi2flP-a-altHX6RIOzG_Cw/s1280/hot%20ones%20cringe.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyqv99Mf_GiZxzswRCMzp2ZIEJkqmmjdq8VVIGzWKs9MSt_eQlvK4-WZjQYAJ_UZWLM4MrEPeT6kyD97FaY4q_NKePqPNDbiaqKdaTmo3ltZFRF5_odKr1ljSCMpnbs6YBjmo4SaHahJWlSwYiL4NHeswd15o3IJnJJUpzi2flP-a-altHX6RIOzG_Cw/w400-h225/hot%20ones%20cringe.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p>A lot of this contradicts the golden rule of journalism to not become the story. You could defend this under the phrase "gonzo journalism" but this doesn't sit well with me. If gonzo is meant to forgo objectivity and add fiction, most media organizations do that by accident, and op-eds on purpose. <i>VICE</i>, Louis Theroux etc. regularly embraced subjectivity and engaged in drug use or in rituals to tell a better story. Werner Herzog fabricated scenes in certain documentaries to get to a deeper truth. Andrew's "journalism" by comparison is simplistic, shallow, and often with an insistence of having himself front-and-center. As a witness to an adult film award ceremony he played a perfect host. <br /><br />Around this time I noticed, and put in my notes: <br /></p><p></p><blockquote><blockquote>"Channel 5 went one-sided and preachy and fame-chasing with a quickness. Instead of an ironic witness to absurdity, it seems cynical and
mean-spirited to its subjects, typically born of unfortunate
circumstance."</blockquote></blockquote>I also wrote having finally understood that, Andrew's the type of person who, were he not holding a microphone, would be one of his subjects. Before that he was a tall, lanky man with bushy hair and bad posture in an ill-fitted suit and acne, and not without a sense of comic timing. It was contrived to a degree but not cynical and that's what made it compelling and digestible. This re-calibrated that dynamic to "a show making fun of the mentally ill," and the show's profile from there began to grow exponentially. Even that in itself isn't the biggest problem, it's being that while posturing as part of the fight for social justice. Nothing arouses distaste in me like holding two completely disparate values and cynically forcing them together for profit. <br /><br />Only days ago Robin Young, a perfectly respectable radio personality and interviewer, asked Andrew a basic boomer question about his willingness to speak with Alex Jones. The glib response and laughter made the rounds, as if lifting weights and drinking alcohol with Alex was an act of courage required to expose him as mentally unhinged. I began then writing this article with a quote as a placeholder. Then, before I could fail to ever launch it, his rising star exploded. Through unfortunate circumstance he killed his career in spectacular fashion coinciding with the release of an HBO documentary titled <i>This Place Rules</i>.<br /><p></p><p>Andrew's documentary is already a non-starter because also on HBO is <i>Q: Into the Storm</i>, which provides a rigorous look at Qanon and the events of Jan. 6 from a much more objective standpoint. <i>This Place Rules</i> seems more like a forced hodgepodge of footage from events strung together into a narrative. Instead of tackling any real psychology of belief it focuses the visceral reaction you get from witnessing the mentally ill behave. It reminds me of Borat where some people considered it brilliant social commentary as opposed to just hilarious depictions of stereotypical behavior encouraged by its stereotypical protagonist. In Andrew's attempt to take a sober look at America all the humor is removed.<br /><br />The trajectory of of <i>This Place Rules</i> and <i>Channel 5</i> toward mean-spirited and more simplistic interpretations of political events seemed like they would eventually have to coincide with a backlash or a crash and burn. This happened with multiple sexual assault allegations against Andrew Callaghan days ago. If he took a step back from the limelight perhaps his work could've survived but he's facing a big problem summed perfectly by a Redditor:<br /></p><blockquote><blockquote>"His audience are the cancelers."</blockquote></blockquote>By delving into the world of simplistic answers he's garnered a simple fan base who won't look into the nuance of his actions, and there's now a vacancy for the relatively basic content he provides for someone with a clean slate to fill. There's a market for people who believe Alex Jones alone instigated Jan. 6 despite that he spoke several times on the day to protest peacefully--a point ignored in the documentary--but not if you yourself are a controversial figure. I hope he makes right by his accusers, and he has enough talent that I hope for his redemption. Because of the audience his work cultivated it seems unlikely and the ending to his documentary ominously counterpoints his predicament: "There is no end. This is only the beginning," Andrew says in a darkened sound stage before exiting the building.<br /><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-32207425698179764122022-12-25T08:17:00.007-06:002023-01-21T00:53:11.190-06:00Aftersun: The Year's Worst Film<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNZZlIDMbeyKrfbESD1ceQ1gIZeSxju4xevQOtLFc5kEd2TQeK4el62G-VoqEaMgb0cZQdixaHUS1IUFnbzXeMZMKC0hrwvgJk1G89nJbcExoHCMZD5AMZUgcdBxJg4l86BiLp5vIKo74Cd3fwSTGN19jJ6jmmh_xeWMVfm4ec55XjW50UMOZCOjIDIA/s1382/aftersun%20the%20years%20worst%20and%20most%20overrated%20film%202.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="969" data-original-width="1382" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNZZlIDMbeyKrfbESD1ceQ1gIZeSxju4xevQOtLFc5kEd2TQeK4el62G-VoqEaMgb0cZQdixaHUS1IUFnbzXeMZMKC0hrwvgJk1G89nJbcExoHCMZD5AMZUgcdBxJg4l86BiLp5vIKo74Cd3fwSTGN19jJ6jmmh_xeWMVfm4ec55XjW50UMOZCOjIDIA/w640-h448/aftersun%20the%20years%20worst%20and%20most%20overrated%20film%202.png" width="640" /></a></div><p><i>Aftersun
</i>is the film of the year... that is critically praised, slow,
realism-focused to the point of boring, melancholic, depressing, and a tedious
mess, shot on lifeless, blue-hue digital cameras. It's a slice of life.
So is waiting in line at Dairy Queen. There needs to be some story and
interesting plot or visual elements interspersed. Other bad films of
this style include <i>Blue Valentine</i> or <i>Chop Shop</i>, though they had a few
moments. A decent example of this style done well would be <i>The Florida
Project</i>. This is the exact kind of movie more mainstream cinema-goers cite as they avoid great understated films. We're talking long boring shots
and Tarkovsky this person is not. <br /><br />The astonishing aspect of this
film is you come to understand how little can happen in 15 minutes. The
tragedy this director tries to portray comes across with equal lack of distinction. What could've made it better was any hint of the purpose
the story was meant to take, and any hint of the form used to express
it. It's not hard in a nearly two-hour running time to include a minute
and 30 seconds about a character's motivation or future ambition. Seeing
someone cry alone in a room does nothing for me compared to
understanding why. Instead, you have a depressed, deadbeat dad type
who's trying to do the right thing. That's many dads, why care. Then you
have the 11-year-old daughter with the implausible emotional maturity
and quips of a 17-year-old. That can be overlooked, but there's no
background into the divorce, no discernible problem in her other than
annoyance, and near zero indication of what these events mean for her
future. I wasn't rooting for her either, she's a wooden chess piece
moved around a sterile screenplay. Toward the tail-end of the film
there's a moment the two are alone on a boat and there's finally a word of empathy and character development between them. Thanks, the first
proof this movie wasn't written and recorded by AI comes before the
climax. The conceit here seems to be that stillness and quiet is enough
to sell something emotionally evocative and incur a response. It's not,
not without interplay with a little movement, a little heightened
happiness to contrast the grief, a little unquiet to liven up to at
least baseline human emotion, so you actually feel down when that time
comes. Instead, it's a two-hour Lexapro commercial. If the entire film had a Paxil logo in the lower right hand corner this
melodrama may be a perfect satirical comedy. Instead, you may be able to
use this film's dull bleakness to break prisoners and secure
intelligence without breaking international law.<br /><br /><i>Aftersun </i>is #1
of the year for <i>BFI</i>, so you know it's not a good film. <i>BFI </i>disgraced
themselves this year after previously curating excellent top 100 all-time
movie lists once a decade, separated lists comprising both the choices of critics and directors. Paul Schrader took them to task for a new-found
ideological slant to their ratings on social media. It's a bad sign
because Paul is essentially a film-maker indiscernible from a
feminist, starting with <i>Taxi Driver</i>--a film that dissected
self-defeating, pathological male ego and its related drives and
desires. He's also known for correctly stating Taylor Swift's music and
concerts affirm life itself. On <i>BFI</i>, he had the following to say: <br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL2oCcZdNUXCx8PXQkoecCVulLcliMNXk9jl2rurvX0pjcxVd_iSu40qucsvkMdXMExDleCCJRvi1fHpBTMHML7FLCXXkQstNrtrR6lMAMzYwHVi18GfkzlhPuRSObe7aXSbXEFNzw81kZO7fz_wdhMhlLQhF2i77PE7-zFmV4Z3UGqp5anZ4Hg0jq5Q/s1411/paul%20schrader%20on%20bfi%20woke%20feminist%20etc.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1411" data-original-width="1080" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL2oCcZdNUXCx8PXQkoecCVulLcliMNXk9jl2rurvX0pjcxVd_iSu40qucsvkMdXMExDleCCJRvi1fHpBTMHML7FLCXXkQstNrtrR6lMAMzYwHVi18GfkzlhPuRSObe7aXSbXEFNzw81kZO7fz_wdhMhlLQhF2i77PE7-zFmV4Z3UGqp5anZ4Hg0jq5Q/w490-h640/paul%20schrader%20on%20bfi%20woke%20feminist%20etc.png" width="490" /></a></div><i><br />BFI</i>'s re-tuned criteria suggests a change in the representation of woman-made films on the list, leading to a frankly confused and forced re-ordering of films. Yes, men are over-represented. There is a ratio of about 25-to-1 male directors versus female, they should be. It's more sexist to assume it's the failure of women or failure to recognize their artistic achievements, rather than recognize it could be they have different or better priorities. Yes, it's tragic when a film is critically overlooked as with Kelly Reichardt's brilliant <i>First Cow</i>. It's also unfortunate and unfair when this happens the other way. I suspect an over-correction could explain the attention given to this work by <span aria-level="1" class="yKMVIe" role="heading">Charlotte Wells.</span><p>I
thought <i>Nope </i>was the year's worst film, which is the worst thing I saw
this year before <i>Playtime </i>by Tati. I would watch <i>Playtime </i>twice more
before rewatching <i>Aftersun</i>. I thought it would be the hidden gem of the
year with so many top spots. All those critics deserve to be hunted and
pelted with Kinder Surprises, but they would love it like the groveling
masochists they are. This film isn't #1, it's a 1. As an olive branch of
optimism, the acting and camera work are there. The main problem with this may be a matter of tuning tone
and pace, adjustments there could result in powerful future films. (I forgot to add this so I will shoehorn it in like my <i>BFI</i>-bashing: large plot points in 3-second splices under strobe-lights is not an effective narrative tool.) Until then when it comes to <i>Aftersun</i>, ask yourself if you want to spend two weeks at a resort with a depressed dad and his boring daughter in damn near real-time. <br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-15091051503695958552022-11-20T22:04:00.001-06:002022-11-20T22:06:07.789-06:00Post for the year 2022
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTh6PvGxpZcmZDA-M8HyAeYrBYb6H2koAiXMuEtAXOvXoTuFFNEgvjbPdhLWyaq9qzy_Xk0zORzSYvJSeL0b9KB6ZPisorK44kft14uzmUU1ZoH61fB02gpv9YQ2wWcLhmzYIgbJzXqCqOjv6Opzj6VDjPHIt4GmkH4wQ6oLCB9ZUEFJVVUcJqHgktdg/s1920/John%20Fetterman%20Hi%20Goodnight%20Everybody.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTh6PvGxpZcmZDA-M8HyAeYrBYb6H2koAiXMuEtAXOvXoTuFFNEgvjbPdhLWyaq9qzy_Xk0zORzSYvJSeL0b9KB6ZPisorK44kft14uzmUU1ZoH61fB02gpv9YQ2wWcLhmzYIgbJzXqCqOjv6Opzj6VDjPHIt4GmkH4wQ6oLCB9ZUEFJVVUcJqHgktdg/w640-h360/John%20Fetterman%20Hi%20Goodnight%20Everybody.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />It's important to <i>try</i>, keep on things, and post regular and pertinent content. <br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-78895920305026085742021-12-16T21:17:00.001-06:002022-03-26T11:30:44.334-05:00On intelligence<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKsh4B_qbvmiYbLIXX1NrRVY5GmLvuawJDEZYGjP4geWE_oD02yXLJZMu-HeyIAAne1N08gxzV9L_mxSIPSH1awwhmhmFRh0F2puwqVLz8m2YpS2GyyacQ2_9KzK06YvMBn_oDc9-6dB3r/s1920/on+intelligence.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1920" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKsh4B_qbvmiYbLIXX1NrRVY5GmLvuawJDEZYGjP4geWE_oD02yXLJZMu-HeyIAAne1N08gxzV9L_mxSIPSH1awwhmhmFRh0F2puwqVLz8m2YpS2GyyacQ2_9KzK06YvMBn_oDc9-6dB3r/w640-h400/on+intelligence.jpg" title="The Uncertainty Principle:" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Uncertainty Principle: It proves we can’t really ever know what’s going on<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p>If you’re dumb by design you can never fully know it. I’ve
had the desire to write on the stupid approach to intelligence.
Often when writing I’ll have this unwelcome inclination to sound like a
good orator or otherwise clever. I fight this instinct because it goes
against the general purpose of what would be an objective and
scientific approach to inquiry. The purpose of language is
only to communicate and an essay expressing a philosophy doesn’t have
the same urgency for perfection a peer-reviewed paper might. Simplicity
is the ultimate tool, and an excess of syllables unnecessarily
complicate a message. I believe this impulse is indicative of how intelligence is perceived as a whole.<br /><br />The easiest way to attack problems with our interpretation of
intelligence is to look at IQ. Previously, I always looked at IQ with
suspicion, as wasting time and rigorously preparing for an intelligence
test seems “low iq,” before we get into the vain impulse to
brag and socially peacock around your intelligence with a ranking or
numerical score. After looking at the criticisms these feelings were
confirmed. The test doesn’t work for several reasons. Namely, you can
tell this because there’s a <i>huge </i>degree of variance even between
people’s own test scores when taken multiple times. Also because it has a
great ability to identify dumbness, but is wildly varying in the higher
numbers on any quantitative scale (NN Taleb). One of those scales for example
would be survivability and how you measure this is anyone’s guess. In my
opinion an IQ test can’t work for the same reason we generally can’t
predict the future. But say you were going for survivability, you could
do some sort of base measure, a nuts and bolts estimate to do with a
person’s financial success. Already, this seems an incredibly weak
underpinning as we aim to predict a person’s ability to navigate an
unknown, virtually infinitely complex future world.<br /><br />But it gets
worse. Tying a person’s success to their ability to survive, or their
ability to earn which is our flimsy but best chance of a correlation
(with all its variability and noise), is predicated on an assumption
that survival is intelligent. Interestingly, the great philosophers like
Alan Watts or Albert Camus often reduced the sum of philosophy to the
question of suicide. It makes sense. A philosophical interpretation of
existence will be examined best through the contrast of not existing. Whether to live, they determined, was the essential question. When judging intelligence, it’s clear
Isaac Newton and Einstein are near the top of the known
persons. But there’s an additional qualifier here if you’re looking at
it through that philosophical lens, they were the smartest people who
were also convinced for whatever reason to be driven and motivated in
their pursuits toward an end. This version of intelligence is dependent
on success predicated by ambition. Surely there’s been many equally
intelligent people indifferent to any pursuit that would have them seen
written into the pages of history, and others undoubtedly were
intelligent and yet met existence, understood it, but saw futility or
went without curiosity and committed suicide or otherwise resigned
themselves in life. <br /><br />Undoubtedly, the great intelligent men of
history also had a bit of luck on their side not to fall to some
misfortune or plague. It makes me question, were Julius Caesar and
Genghis Khan really great men or were they just the best bold
visionaries who also didn’t happen to take an arrow to the chest. Maybe
T.E. Lawrence stood up to gunfire and survived, but if that’s true,
certainly many more people who thought their existence was divinely-ordained were shot dead and never written about. In light of this, a lot
of success is due to luck and explained by survivorship bias. <br /><br />This echoes of
the “great man theory,” which basically suggests a few persons of
extraordinarily talent drove and explain history. I dismiss this because
it credits the crest of the wave while ignoring every other part of the
process. It seems more probable the conditions created by the
collective enabled these individuals and made those high water marks
inevitable. That doesn’t mean certain people’s discoveries didn't save
us decades. I only wish to dispel the gross reductionist view and
venerate to some degree the nameless everyperson for their part in the
process. <br /><br />In short we give too much credit and not enough.
There’s an unquestioned belief that progress is possible and that it is
good. That life, progress and its pursuits are innately intelligent for
seemingly no other reason than we are alive and therefore compelled to
stay so. Call it the life-bias, but if we’re to exist it seems important
to remember this contrast to retain the right perspective and take life
unserious and in stride and revel in its novelty. To recognize
intelligence in any other way is likely stupid and to miss the point
entirely. <br /><br />This could explain the stereotype that smart people
are miserable. It’s easy to infer more complex people will have greater
difficulty and less resources when it comes to solving their more
complex needs. Naval asks a great question, though, “If you’re so smart,
why aren’t you happy?” A great question for many not-so-smart smart
people. But there is also an alternative, the masochistic intelligent
who invite painful thoughts and situations into their lives as a form of
discovery, and help mediate or navigate future trauma and pain. In short, the reason some watch horror movies or TV shows about sociopaths.<br /><br />Intelligence seems to come with undue focus. There’s
no correlation between it and morality. There’s a lack of appreciation
for the wide, diverse systems that enable the experiments, conversation,
and conditions for the inevitable leaps in science. There’s not enough
challenge to the unproven yet widely held assumption that progress is
the imperative collective goal. There’s a lack of study in the idea that
the intelligent individual might meet the complex problems of the world
with indifference. <br /><br />Often people fall for the trap of cult of
personality and for them intelligence can be defined by self-proclaimed
genius, genius itself being a word of mythical quality. From what I can
understand true genius is essentially not quantifiable. Some
self-proclaim, some don’t want credit, some saw into the future enough
they created solutions and prevented wars before they began, some
understood the game of life and decided not to play it.<br /><br />In
considering my desire to write this my motive may be simply the miscalibrated view of intelligence. I see no innately intelligent or
rational component in engaging in existence over not. I see no
intelligent correlation in ambition over indifference. I see a vast
disparity between con artists who claim to be geniuses to place
themselves in that light, versus others smart enough to see fame and
accreditation are often overrated or not worth pursuing. I see an excessive amount of credit
go to problem solvers and not enough credit go to people who prevent
problems from ever starting. I see the vast majority of the attention on
the “great men,” less so on the collective’s daily contributions and
inventions without which those great men would not exist in equal
capacity. I see an unscientific acceptance of science as an irreproachable and final
authority, and this elitism doesn’t seem a wise way to advocate wisdom.<br /><br />
There’s an entire world slowly, day by day inventing and perfecting
ideas that get engineered into the reality, and the same with creating
the complex systems to keep these emerging inventions running smoothly
and compatibly with the inventions of the past, while leaving room for
things to be expanded upon in the future. It seems an impossible task in
a world of billions but this also means you have that many more minds
working towards solutions. This world has another side defined by what it doesn’t do and doesn’t create, alongside with what measures are taken to exclude unfavorable outcomes. By the time you include ambition or desire to participate in life itself, it seems impossible to quantify and current measures are uninspiring and unwise.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-32830037029804074392021-12-02T11:24:00.000-06:002021-12-02T11:24:26.451-06:00America undone<p>Dystopia won’t be a destroyed city, or even a gritty one. It will be white, bright, and clean, just like your thoughts are mandated to be.<br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmXN4OJT_wDqBv0ExhBvbVtx5xdT-TjFPsUetv6c3iFNILUSLmNCJdjM2kYQGmshTGmz3HtIhqfqP29_dCopn-XzxgE1QJrnKZ1Cs0PY0ezIHRvKGaJDpU_8wNPWu7wQsQzb6J_HjXkYbT/s1000/going+under%252C+sedation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="668" data-original-width="1000" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmXN4OJT_wDqBv0ExhBvbVtx5xdT-TjFPsUetv6c3iFNILUSLmNCJdjM2kYQGmshTGmz3HtIhqfqP29_dCopn-XzxgE1QJrnKZ1Cs0PY0ezIHRvKGaJDpU_8wNPWu7wQsQzb6J_HjXkYbT/w640-h428/going+under%252C+sedation.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>No one wants to work and you can’t blame them. The culture of easy money
from the finance industry, tech, and celebrities has trickled down. The hard work ethos has some truth but more often than not it’s a tool
to exploit people, and to divide those with no income and those with
just slightly more. You can make 200k and you’re still closer to a
McDonald’s worker and a serf compared to people with real money,
the kind that comes from passive income investment properties and stocks. You don’t even need a
good business or business model, by the time a company’s failing you
could have already sold it in a public offering. And I know this sounds
like ramblings in a goth’s scrapbook but I’m goth and this is correct. <p></p><p>There’s inflation that’s knocked 96% of the dollar’s value in 100 years.
The Fed admitted this week maybe it isn’t transitory. So it’ll get worse.
It’s always been a way for governments to steal people’s labor by
spending that money before it affects the average person. To be fair socialist countries seem to work the same, if not worse, because a power
consolidation always forms and uniform pay doesn’t always incentivize
innovation or harder work (an oversimplification). But even still, the
median American pay is about $35,000. If Elon Musk for example was
operating at 100x the mental and man-power of the average person by
median wage this would be 3.5 million a year. Of course people are confused by
his net worth not realizing it’s tied to liquid assets, people placing
bets on Tesla as a future energy company, and pricing in absurd future
earnings potential. If he sold and gave all his money away it would
decrease in value during the sell off, not to mention due to its
connection with indexes potentially trigger a collapse in the stock
market. The fact an innocuous tweet can cost a company 100 billion dollars
should indicate the market operates on hopes and dreams more so than any
connection to reality.
And that’s just one person.</p><p>As much as you can shit on Elon and Bezos
and Zuckerberg, at least they’re to some degree providing a service. If
they paid their fair share the government would still be trillions in
debt, because governments like seemingly any organization with big
administrative teams get bloated and expensive when the people at the
top are basically deciding their own salaries, hiring an assistant for their secretary’s dog-walker, and entertaining conflicts of
interest to make more money through favors, stock market manipulation
and insider trading. Really, how did Nancy Pelosi make $100 million on
$200,000 in salary. Banks and hedge funds are the same thing, making
some of the largest amounts of money providing the least amount of
service. And money is so powerful, humans don’t matter anymore. Super
computers and algorithms in technology by companies like BlackRock exist
to price in, calculate, and profit from catastrophic events that haven’t happened yet. They have 9 trillion in assets. I believe this AI is in
charge of society (see Hypernormalization documentary) along with banks,
money picks presidents, with leaders being mostly performative and symbolic
at this point.</p><p>Winner takes all capitalism is a nightmare. China is our competitor
because they have cheap labor and complete control of their country,
plus they steal all our intellectual property at will and modify it with
their spyware. This gives them a huge advantage because they get all the
data that would be highly illegal here to make their decisions, and
means they will be ahead of the United States in terms of data and information, and through this erosion of privacy better able to implement dangerous, power-consolidating technology like social
credit scores (see Whitney Webb’s work). What
happens if China has more cheap labor and less regulation to throw into
innovation during the AI arms race. People want limitless clean energy
but what happen when a country with a cheap factory force creates endless, deadly solar-powered drones that blot out our skies. Technologies are dangerous
without some universal moral backbone which our world is far
from.</p><p>So to go back to something basic, I don’t know what the perfect answer
is. But the fact we can’t figure out something as important as
healthcare. And this shows itself because even during the pandemic many
prominent health officials and organizations both lied to people and
seemed to have no idea what to do during a pandemic. What were the
people at the CDC doing for the last few decades if the emergency
response was handled so poorly. Nothing was done to calm or universally
inform the public. Key positions and recommendations were changed to and from
several times, despite precedents for pandemics existing in Asia. The
Trump press hearings were a shit show. Without a fix to this you’re
going to have more societal derangement, the lack of fairness that
drives people even further to mental illness, more Mathboi Flies driving
into people and children.</p><p>And largely this is an effect of greed, a pathological desire for more.
Like in this probably fake anecdote, JP Morgan in response to Tesla’s
free energy device says, “If it’s free, where do we put the meter?” I
don’t know but if we had more energy we would have progressed more
quickly and JP Morgan maybe wouldn’t be dead or would have at least got
to use the internet. Instead people go for the satisfying short-term,
and would prefer the illusion of power over something or someone to
inhabiting a better world where they are not the star player. <br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-47388958162954903552021-12-02T09:51:00.000-06:002021-12-02T09:51:10.346-06:00Yes Twitter shadow bans (why Twitter is toxic)<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLIsPdnFGcQAqCPHUJj3N9AjOsQgv9AwIiamoNcBg-J6Fsa-4BSKI-KopqvQo3RACTr-96b0Mbadb8dc_cPMPks_OC9J_YSzX8fff-dAoaftCvCW7mpa7ldrMv_xA19YLuGQTPPfDSVD2K/s1095/vijaya+gadde+as+nurse+ratched.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="579" data-original-width="1095" height="338" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLIsPdnFGcQAqCPHUJj3N9AjOsQgv9AwIiamoNcBg-J6Fsa-4BSKI-KopqvQo3RACTr-96b0Mbadb8dc_cPMPks_OC9J_YSzX8fff-dAoaftCvCW7mpa7ldrMv_xA19YLuGQTPPfDSVD2K/w640-h338/vijaya+gadde+as+nurse+ratched.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A pathological paternalistic authoritarian and Nurse Ratched<br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Previously news came from reporters on scene with access to satellites and giant
video cameras. Now that every citizen is a videographer, ever-present at all scenes, instantaneously
able to communicate through internet access, the new frontier for
breaking news is social media. With Twitter leading this revolution (for
now), it must come with an incredible power to shape public opinion and
a sense of responsibility to ensure public safety. It’s clear Twitter
as a company has an ideological slant. Jack Dorsey himself admitted this
on Joe Rogan’s podcast, stating conservatives at his company are afraid
to speak up. With Dorsey stepping down as CEO and new rules requiring
permission for media use, there’s a strong chance the goal is censorship
and to further their ability to shape news and narratives. <br /><br /><b>Does Twitter shadow ban?</b><br /><br />Look up “Does Twitter shadow ban?” and this article comes up:<br /><br /><i>Setting the record straight on shadow banning - Twitter Blog<br />Jul 26, 2018 </i><br /><br />“We do rank tweets and search results. We do this because Twitter is most useful when it’s immediately relevant.”<br /><br />Translation: we decide for you what’s useful and have a ranking system of questionable practices.<br /><br />It continues...<br /><br />“We must also address bad-faith actors who intend to manipulate or detract from healthy conversation.”<br /><br />Translation:
we shadow ban. Again this doesn’t say spam bots or Russian spies. So
who decides what constitutes a bad faith actor or someone who “detract[s]
from healthy conversation,” or what healthy conversation even entails? Calling for healthy conversation is innately political, certainly you could not argue it’s apolitical. Memes and shit-posting are the junk food of internet dialogue, rarely healthy, yet I would see no reason to censor or otherwise curtail them. I’m confused by people who can vent their opinions publicly online to theoretically billions of people and are surprised when some of the reactions are pointed or uncouth. I’m surprised when tech companies believe it’s at all possible to try to shape billions of conversations in real-time and reasonably understand their context, tone, or irony. It’s clearly a problem you can’t address without making worse.<br /><br />A bad faith actor is decided by:<br /><br />“2. What actions you take on Twitter (e.g. who you follow, who you retweet, etc)”<br /><br />“3. How other accounts interact with you (e.g. who mutes you, who follows you, who retweets you, who blocks you, etc)”<br /><br />So
get this, they don’t shadow ban, but they do heavily reduce your
visibility in a ranking system from being seen based on the people you
follow and who you like. Of course, you might also get this treatment if
you are followed by someone who is a “bad faith actor” against your
will. This is also the case if you’re ignored or blocked.<br /><br />They
act as if this is complicated. You don’t need a complex algorithm. Most
popular, newest, oldest, random (+ your convoluted AI shadowbanning system). From there, delete spam and anything unlawful. If you don’t
want swearing, put a filter for it that can be turned off. You don’t get to
decide who is acting in bad faith, not without ruining your platform.
What does this even mean. Can you not have a bad day, a snide or
sarcastic comment, a temperamental disposition? Can you be anything but
positive? Can you be extraordinarily negative if you have the right
political leanings? <br /><br />It’s a big deal. If you get banned on
Twitter you lose access and the ability to interact with politicians,
police, and emergency services.<br /><br />In addition to them admitting it, here’s more hardcore due diligence: <br /><br />Many
posts have a “show more replies” button even if the thread only has a
couple responses. The responses often include aggressive language or
references to harsh topics like pedophilia. Regardless if it is relevant
to the original thread, these are put into a quarantined area, and
within this is yet another layer called, “show additional replies,
including those that may contain offensive content.”<br /><br /><b>Why is Twitter hostile?</b><br /><br />My
theory is the two are related. There’s already bluechecks and follower
counts to give the famous an amplification of their words. In addition
to this, the masses of “voiceless” people go not only unheard, many are
actively silenced. By being labeled a bad faith actor, their words
suppressed by algorithms informed by political opinions, potentially
furthering their alienation and creating a reactive desire to dig their
heels in. Its simply an incredibly cruel thing to do to give people the
impression of a voice or participation, left to wonder why even their
innocuous observations inspire no response. I imagine this is done: to
protect celebrities and persons of power, out of paternalism, to dictate
narratives, political aims and “healthy conversations,” and to please
advertisers. A website with an emphasis on celebrity and status,
fomenting an increasingly unhinged group of the shadow“ranked,” where
conversation is already limited in length, is a recipe for the horror
show it is now. <br /><br /><b>What is the fix?</b><br /><br />Firstly, this is not going to happen. It would be like expecting the NRA to go woke. But, stop trying to fix it.
Crazy people are a self-correcting problem. They are ignored naturally like they are living dick pill advertisements. Make the censorship an
optional setting, make all public comments visible to everyone (with blocks focusing on interaction). What will happen is eventually decentralized social media. In the meantime, Twitter will continue to be the place where you get mega e-points for <i>seeming </i>virtuous rather than <i>being </i>it.<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-62063110734072430492021-06-02T01:20:00.000-05:002021-06-02T01:20:24.456-05:00What I’ve learned about markets<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV2M-TyrjE7qIQM2VnTdwFlHQvFm7e72IvDAtfaZGaacCeTSS8E0dgcuw8WTujS_Ui5jYrfWEcbnLwoieYmYShrjf-g1Tr5_fnqYKEwE4IQuSVlrVTEAYCXJicc3eVmxFmdmOcOfz1IW9I/s960/black+swan+event+nicholas+nassim+taleb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="710" data-original-width="960" height="474" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV2M-TyrjE7qIQM2VnTdwFlHQvFm7e72IvDAtfaZGaacCeTSS8E0dgcuw8WTujS_Ui5jYrfWEcbnLwoieYmYShrjf-g1Tr5_fnqYKEwE4IQuSVlrVTEAYCXJicc3eVmxFmdmOcOfz1IW9I/w640-h474/black+swan+event+nicholas+nassim+taleb.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><p>A few have asked so I’m typing this out. Most this information isn’t new, it’s my interpretation of it and what I think is the most valuable. So far, I’ve had success and over 100x ROIs (not crypto) in what’s probably preparation + luck. Not financial advice.<br /><br />Time
in the market > timing the market - most important rule. “You miss
100% of the shots you don’t take.” Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg
agreed the hardest part of the job is getting out of the car. The most
successful events in the market came down to just a handful of days. If
you don’t have some exposure to the market you will miss those parabolic
leaps when they do happen. So if you’re not in the market, or don’t
have sufficient capital in it, or your cash is “settling” from a
day-trade meaning you can’t access it, you’re going to miss out.
Individual days of parabolic success are the same for individual stocks,
so if you’re not in before the spike you don’t benefit. Investor Rick
Rule suggests being down 50% is the price you pay to be up 400 to 500%.
Meaning, long term gains require the patience and foresight to withstand
the price volatility that is likely to happen before big gains. In
short, it’s better to be a stumbling, clumsy investor more often than
someone trying to time the market so precisely they are paralyzed by
indecision. <br /><br />Avoid risk of ruin - the second most important thing
is simply don’t be over-invested and take controlled risks. You
generally shouldn’t have any money in your investment account that you
need to take out unless it’s for another investment (house, business) or
you’re making enough gains through investments where it’s akin to
income. If you are over-invested you may end up taking money out of
investments at a loss that you still believe will be profitable in the
mid to long term. Try not to invest money you may need for personal use
in the short term for this reason. And don’t trade with money you can’t
afford to lose is terribly obvious advice. Avoiding risk of ruin seems
to be one of the most important aspects of trading. It goes with the
saying “Bulls (betting with the market) make money, bears (betting
against the market) make money, pigs (dummies who yolo) get
slaughtered.” If you receive a million dollar inheritance and YOLO it
all into dogecoin at .45 you could double your money but you could also
lose 90% of it. Avoiding risk of ruin might be say, putting 95% of it
into safe blue chip stocks and only putting $50,000 for a controlled
yolo. This way if your brilliant investment idea flops you can recover.
Avoiding risk of ruin means you get to keep the lights on and try again.
<br /><br />Pareto’s Principal - this is something I first learned about in
Peter Thiel’s <i>Zero to One</i> outlining his success in creating PayPal and
investing strategy. Pareto’s Principle is essentially a rule of thumb
dictating 80% of results are driven by 20% of the effort. It’s a way of
making a calculated diversification strategy. For example he explains
when looking into an industry, he will invest in a handful of companies
with the idea each company must have enough potential for success to
cover the potential losses of the failed companies. This is the same
80/20 strategy. For example, I’m sure cultured meat has huge potential
for the future. Many of those companies will fail but if you can bet on
the best horses, with the huge upside potential only 20% success could
cover your losses and achieve great gains. <br /><br />Probability - Nassim
Taleb pointed out a foolish investor who said he doesn’t mess with
stock options because 90% of the time they expire worthless. But he
added this means nothing, without knowing what you stand to gain the 10%
of the time you do win. If it is weighted with gains in the thousands
of percent that has to be part of the equation. Taleb in <i>The Black Swan </i>
also talks through the analogy of heads and tails coin flipping, and how
that could be imposed upon the stock market if you’re talking about
many different investments or stock options priced low enough to hedge
against the low probability they will end “in the money.” But unlike a
coin flip, even a little bit of knowledge changes the landscape of
probability in your favor dramatically. <br /><br />Psychology &
strategy - despite emphasis on the fundamentals the market is too big
not to be in large part psychological, which means speculative trading
has huge influence on it. You can have gut-feeling traders who make an
investment on a news story, then the slightly more informed trader who
trades speculating on what those traders will do (e.g. buy the rumor,
sell the news), and you can have the super serious fundamentals trader
who still have to take speculative trading and rumors into account, and
then the high-level hedge fund people who have to navigate and
manipulate the entire picture. It’s important to do some mental
accounting to have a strategy that works for you and your psychology.
Most people are fine with limiting risk to their safe 401ks. Some want
to actively invest but can’t handle seeing red day after red day in
their trading account, so they need safer investments but also to hope
to get in after a dip for a better entry point. Then there’s the people
who ride large, violent fluctuations on the high risk, high reward
spectrum that are willing to brave near-ruin for a disproportionate
gain. <br /><br />Up/down - calling back to the probability section, the
coin flip analogy is important. An investment is essentially always
going to be worth more, or less. From there it’s up for an investor to
decide which way it’s going and for how long. It’s up or down. This is
the case whether the play is entirely speculative or not. This is the
case of whether it’s a good company or Enron. This is the case
regardless of how good or bad the fundamentals look. You could have
something with great fundamentals but where the public sentiment is
completely sour and in that case it would be better to short if there’s
no catalyst for that opinion to change. A good decision weighs
sentiment, speculation, catalysts, due diligence, potential for future
earnings, and fundamentals, yet sometimes just one of these can save you
time by inching you towards yes or no. <br /><br />Take the L - “Stonks
only go up” is of course a lie. Sure the S&P and major indexes go
up, that’s because they trim the losers. And even good stocks don’t go
up in a bear market, sometimes for years, so if you need access to that
money you end up taking a loss. In stock picks where the information has
changed or the catalyst you saw for market gains has been proven wrong,
cut losses. Many people fall into the “sunk cost fallacy” and never
want to take a loss. -30% can quickly turn into -60%. That’s better off
into an investment you believe in. <br /><br />Paper trading is kinda bs -
unless you’re of an age where you have literally no money I believe
paper trading to be a waste of time. Even the average Robin Hood trading
account of $250 is more worthwhile because of skin in the game. There
is no pain in losing imaginary money. Losing or gaining real money is
informational and it properly calibrates your brain for risk. <br /><br />It’s
all a pump and dump - nearly everything has the buy low, sell high
dynamic. After studying a bit of the financial markets it’s easy to see
everything as a pump and dump. In conception you convince your mate you
are worthwhile and have resources or childbearing skills. Upon your
birth, hospitals artificially inflate fees to gain as much as they can
from insurance companies. It’s the nature of salesman and advertisers.
Government officials do it with false campaign promises. Colleges
exploit the government promises of tuition by requesting more. If the
government can’t tax you they can print money to take your labor by
devaluing currency. It’s promotion and under-delivering. It happens with
hype-beasts. It happens when flippers and scalpers suppress
availability to create demand. It’s even in death, as funerals are a
traumatic and stressful time and businesses know people aren’t trying to
look for a bargain when dealing with the death of a loved one. Of
course it’s in the market, so take suggestions with a fair amount of
skepticism. <br /> <br />Manipulation - market moving institutional
investors and whales can all have a huge influence and create waves to
take retail (regular person) money by shorting or funding with tens of
millions or billions. Elon Musk probably pumps Dogecoin to distract that
his own company’s stock is overvalued. I believe it happens on news
organizations like Motley Fool or Seeking Alpha. It happens by regular
people on Reddit, Twitter, Investorhub, Facebook groups, Stock Twits,
etc. Some try to sell others on the stocks and some are just trying to
sell themselves. So not only do you need to do due diligence on your
stock, but any person or a company who might wish to exploit it. <br /><br />Learn
to like bleeding - there’s probably a level of intense conviction
required to make truly massive market gains. It requires discipline in
the form of the lack of emotion in the pain that is losing money. And it
is painful, because you’re risking livelihood and future security and
above that peace of mind. It’s an unnatural demand but a necessary part
of the process. You wouldn’t expect to get good at something without
misses. Many live their lives in a poverty and scarcity mindset. It’s a
visceral feeling to dismiss that and welcome what comes and try to ride
the ups and downs, and why not. Tomorrow I bet the sun comes up but it’s
not guaranteed. <br /><br />-----<br /><br />Notes: <br /><br />Important things that helped, so far<br /><br /><i>The
Art of Thinking Clearly</i>, a book by Rolf Dobelli describing common
thinking errors and biases. It’s a great resource probably because he
essentially plagiarized, which means you can take the ebook without
guilt. It’s to the point and can substantially refine the way you think
about things by outlining what to avoid. <br /><br />Naval Ravikant is a no bullshit entrepreneur and
investor. He wrote short and succinct ideas about wealth creation in
Twitter threads that were later condensed into a 3.5 hour YouTube video
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-TZqOsVCNM">how to get rich</a>, titled in a sexy way but it’s really about responsible wealth creation. <br /><br />The first 100 pages of the <i>4-Hour Work
Week</i> by Timothy Ferris. That’s when he outlines his best points and
shortcuts. The rest didn’t feel equally as important. <br /><br />If you
have more time, the audiobooks of Nassim Taleb, particularly <i>Antifragile
</i>and <i>The Black Swan</i> narrated by Joe Ochman. In terms of nonfiction
probably among the best books in terms of good ideas per capita. <br /><br /><i>What
I Learned Losing a Million Dollars</i> is a book that is sort of the
counter to the stereotypical how I became a billionaire books. You can
probably learn more from failure than success but it’s not as sexy.</p><p><i>Zero to One</i> by Peter Thiel explains the story of Paypal and how to invest strategically in a compelling way.<br /></p><p> <i>A Random Walk Down Wall Street</i> for a historical
perspective on the market, explaining previous bubbles, hysteria, and index funds.<br /></p><p>Comedian <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0_H7MXzOwE">Jessa Reed</a> on money and avoiding the poverty mentality.<br /><br />Keith Gill’s (RoaringKitty) early assessment of $GME, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZTr1-Gp74U">here</a>, well before the pop is great example of value investing and due diligence from a retail(-ish) perspective. <br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-27614995816210345762021-05-29T04:52:00.004-05:002023-01-12T01:00:13.893-06:00World's next Stalin seeks passive wallflower <div class="separator"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG-D_MBQjVsLLzCO4axFXRGBIOcZK-KTucSqpJTdLymibD6HrGq3xXY7_2XY6Uju2z0GedTEBWk6XEWFoWq1O5PjX5dQqKIWGI8B57J6I5nSBMNav8_P_mk0EGyzhhjsUHeneqbtX36fcl/w640-h426/love+and+companionship.jpg" /></a></div><p><span style="color: #999999;"><i>It's been a long while since I've done a personal ad. A fun writing exercise and an obtuse and ineffective way to find a mate. </i></span><br /><br />Are you tired of
your bog standard, run-of-the-mill guy, filling your heart with hopes
and dreams and mostly lies while you spend another cold Saturday night
in the presence of an unringing phone? Are you tired of Netflix 'n'
Jillin' with your blindfold on so you can imagine a half-decent lover is
in the room while you play with your Bird Box? Are you seriously
considering inviting an Indian call scammer, with the offer of marriage
and citizenship, just because they're the only men still willing to call
you? Have you had it dealing with these dick-picture direct-messaging
hordes? Are you tired of being cheated on by liars and left for girls
half your age? Now's the time to do something different. Now's the time
to go for what you falsely claimed to have always wanted: a man who is
open and honest. <br /><br />I am an anomaly, the open and honest man. You
have worn your grandmother's quilted blanket thin, it's time to let her
and her memory go. It's time to leave your comfort zone and your thrift
shop romance novel notions behind. You can't have your knight in shining
armor, but maybe you can have a man who has seen The Shining 14 times.
Try something new, you may stand to learn something about yourself. I'm
not offering a relationship, I am offering an education. Like the work
of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, you will learn through via negativa. Negative
space. You will learn all about what not to want in men. I am the Black
Swan in the fourth quadrant. Let's face it, if you're reading this
profile you're not where you want to be. This is your life, and it's
ending one Fight Club reference at a time. Did you laugh at that? You're
too old not to reply to this. Your ego is the only knight you know
along with the 45 lb sword you carry called dignity. It's time to leave
them both behind.<br /><br />I'll be honest and open. You are great. You're
still reading. You are an interesting woman. You’re patient, articulate,
and industrious. Only continue if you are a goddess. Deep down, you
know you are sacred. You are worthy of worship. You are a temple. But
what is a temple if not something to be repeatedly stepped on? So you are a
beautiful stepping stone there for support as I reach for more
attractive and emotionally fulfilling women. What? Those are your words
not mine. Is it really gaslighting if you agree with it? Being worshiped is about service. You get to be Jesus, by
footwashing and providing me with bread and wine. Sure, maybe you can't
like him create endless fish, but you can take me to Red Lobster for Endless Shrimp. <br /><br />Now a relationship is like gainful
employment and if you're like me you've tried to avoid these for too
long now. But you are a liberal. You're a great woman, you're generous,
you're charitable. You believe in the cause. You believe in the
Ocasio-Cortez. You believe in the Fight For $15 standard for minimum
wage. Which is why if you make less than $15 an hour, please begone.
You must practice what you preach. Stop spending your days swiping left
on your phone on 5 ft 4-in beta males thinking some Chad is going to
waste his Superlike on you. And even when it is your turn for your one
night stand, you won't have enough experience to lay out a proper
contract. You'll end up f—ked by the freelancer because you have no
union, and subsequently no civil union. Put in your hours with me and
nine other beta males, ascend the social hierarchy. Use this experience
to gain a better position, or marry the first one to create an app.
Life: solved. <br /><br />Well let's be honest. You're not that attractive.
Women in the real world are swarmed with men. They are accosted and
propositioned at work, at school, at home by their stepfather, and
catcalled on the street. If a damsel was lost in the desert and started
crying, terrifying erections would begin sprouting from the sand. Maybe
you're the unicorn with low self-esteem, but most likely you are either:
physically have the body type of a standing croissant, your best friend
is a voice in your head telling you you are not in fact mentally ill,
or you owned dogs too long and cannot convey emotion with a proper human
being. Or you have a child which is the same as all three combined. Physically and
emotionally able-bodied and able-minded women don't generally require
dating profiles. But you know what one sexy trick transcends all of
these attributes? Owning your flaws and who you are.<br /><br />Let's go
through the processes here. What's the least attractive part of a woman?
Her child, obviously. Do you have kids? I have a motto about single
moms. Kids are like gunshots: one, you'll probably pull through, two:
outlook is not so good, three or more: you're not going to make it. The
second heuristic I have is, each kid removes exactly one point from your
total potential on a 10-point scale. So if you have three kids you need
to be a perfect 10 in personality and looks to be a 7. Now, every man
feels this way, they just don't have the time to come up with these
illuminating rational explanations, let alone the heart to relay them to
you. So in order to be loved as a mom you need to be either close to
perfect, rich, or willing to abandon your offspring (which is just
long-form for “perfect” [a sense of humor also helps]). <br /><br />Now you
always hear in the western world the same question, why are women so
unhappy? In America they are the most liberated, free, and educated.
There is an answer. The second biggest flaw outside of children and the
biggest creator of female unhappiness is called dignity. Be self-aware,
and eradicate dignity. Learn to wear your slut on your sleeve, but you can't because you're not wearing any. Oh no, but you'll be used. You can be
the dignified fine China sitting forever in a showcase cabinet, or you
can be the dog bowl the human animal really wishes to be. Or maybe
you're a paper plate, or restaurant-grade ceramic. Success comes from
many failures. Try them all before deciding who you are. </p><p></p><p></p><div>The truth is, on men in relation to women, we only want one thing.
And that is to join you at the apple orchard. Sure, we'll put up a
front of disinterest to save face. But watch us as we cup that
low-hanging fruit for the first time, fresh off the vine, and
contemplate its relation from ecology to Adam and Eve, to the apple that
fell before Issac Newton causing him to contemplate if the moon, too,
was falling. We only want one thing more than your acquaintance,
and that to meet your admirable, well-mannered dogs, friends, and future
in-laws. We want nothing more than to jump over the hurdles of sexual
conquest to get to the good part where you where you recite out loud
your high school poetry, which for me inspires an out-of-body experience
almost as if I imagine myself elsewhere.<br /><br />That's my pitch. Find yourself fastest through what you are not. How did Michael Angelo sculpt his masterpiece? He chipped away at everything that wasn't David. Go for broke, often literally, with say a gangly nervous guy with the skin tone of pizza, let him get some. He's disease-free and you'll change his life and your own capacity for empathy. Or me, I'm a mix of Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, and a hedgehog being tickled. All I want is someone to walk hand-in-hand with me as we explore the natural world and the vacant former estates of Jeffrey Esptein for evidence of human trafficking to report to the FBI but we can't <i>because they're in on it.</i> We could try yoga, or pilates, or study the genocide of the Tutsis, or the work of Miyazaki. Life is a tapestry and the best ones require two to handle.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-66680323051663136722021-05-10T20:06:00.000-05:002021-05-10T20:06:05.778-05:00Controversy! Ted Kaczynski was wrong<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFYYL6WAZWODkRHHuxU4HjuzRsPAkh208X1ifgro_ZI7nD9zsgulYL64GS5b1yqEnfzD6o0BwhV5vQ0K6IVeb1-ddZgcazdn6HJ-5Vd36nX9pfo4Ggoq2H4CnPlU9bfBO6H1f8LI4auWsi/s1050/unabomber-cabin.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="727" data-original-width="1050" height="444" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFYYL6WAZWODkRHHuxU4HjuzRsPAkh208X1ifgro_ZI7nD9zsgulYL64GS5b1yqEnfzD6o0BwhV5vQ0K6IVeb1-ddZgcazdn6HJ-5Vd36nX9pfo4Ggoq2H4CnPlU9bfBO6H1f8LI4auWsi/w640-h444/unabomber-cabin.webp" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr></tbody></table>The paranoid should grow up. The sublime Orwellian fantasy people secretly grovel for and drool over isn't going to happen. It's a fringe subset of people who believe they are the true woke, having attained maximum enlightenment, a plateau just beyond "I watch <i>Ancient Aliens</i> regularly." <i>1984 </i>isn't coming, perhaps <i>1984 </i>helped prevent it. Most likely, it was never going to happen. "A boot stamping on a human face - forever"? No. Why would humans need to be kept in subjugation at all in a technologically inclined future? They'd just be gotten rid off. The truth to balance over a controlled people is probably what we have now and always have, where the little people are made to win just enough to never complain. Instead of subjugation, it's pleasure and enough bells and whistles for complacency. <br /><p>These fantasies make believe they're helping, but they're only helping authors sell books. It's always selling a moral universe where the individual is kept down and somehow only ends up reiterating the good guys only win in novels. It's always selling some power consolidated group of people as the true assholes, and everyone else must rise above and do the righteous bidding to make the world better. But think of the "little people" you know. A lot of them are assholes, probably the majority. Regular people are scumbags, and the evil cabal controlling the world were once regular. There's no winning, and there's no conspiracy. The only conspiracy is the universal truth that power enables. It's true and that's why people strive to attain it. </p><p>A good example of this is all the vaccine bullshit. Typically the science-worship crowd was correct to love vaccines. Untested vaccines however were a more right-of-center, laissez-faire approach where certain companies and political figures sought to get health products to the market as quickly as possible to profit. Clearly, you're 100% right to feel trepidation about vaccines that have only been tested a year or so. Where it gets dumb is the microchip crowd. I mean, technically they're not wrong. Ted Kaczynski was right about most things. Humans and technology merging is inevitable. His premise was wrong. Before that, though, the idea that vaccines will be a vessel to kill off all the complacent people, surviving only the free-thinkers (or gullible, dumb, paranoid) makes no sense. You would want to (in terms of this paranoid delusion) kill off the group of people who hamper or question social control.</p><p>The premise of these paranoid types are wrong. While astoundingly bright, what Ted Kaczynski got wrong is the assumption that people don't deserve technological enslavement. You deserve the world you're willing to put up with. Many factors in the world and its system of processes got it to where it is now. The apathy and indifference he saw in the people responsible for that potentially harmful technological revolution extends to everyone else, not just an elite few. The complacency and convenience drive the technology and subsequent laws and social attitudes toward them, not the other way around.</p><p>The ultimate tool of control isn't brutal subjugation. That's not how you control the masses. It's slack. It's giving them just enough freedom to feel they've won, or even only that winning is possible. It's not <i>divide and conquer</i>, it's making you feel lucky to have running water. If you you think money is stolen from you via taxes, it's <i>really </i>stolen from you from inflation. By the time say, universal basic income comes along, an extra $2000 a month will be what the masses should be earning anyway, only now good-guy government gets to look charitable and responsible. They also now have a social safety net they can garnish and negotiate with to impose control. Don't follow orders, and the comfort you've been given is threatened. <br /></p><p>There's no sense in obsessing over this. A fascist take-over isn't coming. It's here and always has been. With governments and without it takes residence in human hearts. The impulse happens in homes and among peer groups and in organizations big and small. It's the same whether people simply want to dominate over you or when it's coming from people who know what's best for you. <br /><br />So what tf does any of this mean. Well, the horrific reality, inevitably, best case scenario, "progress" leads to mass homogenization. People's ideas aren't that unique. Rugged individualism is probably narcissistic folly. If we are rational, scientific and empirical, eventually we all become the same thing. We have the same diets and the same ideas. We drive the same, safest car. We tell the same jokes and sound the same. We might be slight variations but more or less the same. If we live in a world stripped of irony, we blend into monotonous sludge, but a very capable one. That is the future of progress, where diversity is killed precisely because it is the subject of emphasis.<br /><br />It's not only an elite that moves things in the direction they get to. People open and close options with every choice. They're all part of the process. And all that sway may have nothing on randomness. Brass tacks, the endless pursuit and baby-shaking attempts to wake people are wasted. Or, it's done not to unplug someone from bad ideas but in belief they'll think the same as them. When humans enter wildlife the responsible thing is generally seen as to not interfere. Probably the same is said best from human-to-human with choices that impact only them. The idea of saving people by force, re-education, and control, or as in Ted's case with actual violence, in precaution for a future fascist threat is hilariously contradictory.</p><p>There's a difference between seeing things as they are in the conspiracy-fact realm and existing in the narrative fallacy based in the binary of good and evil. That binary exists on every level, and the processes dictating people's actions in a system is an outcome of unfathomable factors as complex as a preference for authoritarianism in the face of chaos or the inability to navigate choice. Yes, certain conspiracies are true but obsession with it often becomes a way to create a simple answer where exists the potentially scarier areas of complexity, random chance, or no control at all.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-44324049294516568962021-05-10T15:55:00.003-05:002021-05-11T03:55:18.327-05:00Your inevitable microchipped future<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7k9ufob196Ll6GedaI0_2_Sca66pH5Aaz8nMsVeTRThCeY1puWIOwPNj9-RjMsDxVohywDrNPA0_CTVBOA34s2QIHQF7Ee6KIuumxuEVyIE-dGRzvbrHVsULacWPw7pE5WbfF66ib-7Wl/s1677/technology+merge+human.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="865" data-original-width="1677" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7k9ufob196Ll6GedaI0_2_Sca66pH5Aaz8nMsVeTRThCeY1puWIOwPNj9-RjMsDxVohywDrNPA0_CTVBOA34s2QIHQF7Ee6KIuumxuEVyIE-dGRzvbrHVsULacWPw7pE5WbfF66ib-7Wl/w640-h330/technology+merge+human.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">all of you in three months<br /></td></tr></tbody></table>If humanity continues down
its trajectory of progress, you will be microchipped. The only exclusion
is some scenario where there is no future as we understand it due to
apocalyptic settings or post-war environment, or a relentless, sustained effort to the contrary. The last of the three is least likely.
Anyone capable of a modicum of rational human thought sees this
inevitability. Humans and technology will merge. To disbelieve it is to be
incredibly naive. <br /><br />A distinction should be made between the
enlightened paranoid and cranks. Only a fool believes the far-fetched
scenario that this is done against the will of the people. It will be at
their behest. It will be at their insistence. It will be done in the
name of safety. It's already the excuse for our beloved pets, cattle,
and wildlife. It also exists already in humans. There is rich irony is in the
lack of imagination conspiracy theorists have. <div><br /></div><div>What dictates society is
always in the middle, the average. It's not<i> the fringe</i> people. It's
certainly not the lower class. It's about the middle class and average,
and how the well-educated and the rich can exploit and influence them.
This may change. Currently the average is working class families. They
have some form of indentured servitude where they can never turn their
back economically on their offspring, nor the health insurance so many of their jobs provide. <p>The interest and the economics of the middle class are cemented if you look at the most popular Google keywords for their AdSense program:<br /><br />Insurance $54.91<br />Loans $44.28<br />Mortgage $47.12<br />Attorney $47.07<br />Credit, etc<br /><br />Number
one is insurance. People want assurances. People want to know their
loved ones are you going to be looked after and taken care of. Parents buy
their children expensive smartphones now at increasingly younger ages
to know where they are at all times and in case they need help. This
great economic mover could change. Like people in Japan and some
European countries there could be a decline in reproductive rates. But
biology has a clear reproduction bias. <br /><br />Humans have a clear
inclination toward convenience. We are already have computerized
banking. We have credit scores. China is experimenting with a social
credit rating. We have levels of education and degrees. It stands to
reason an amalgamation of these credit and merit systems invariably comes to be.<br /><br />To some extent this exists. People are tagged. Lawsuits against company forcing the tagging of employees have been filed. We have phones operating to reduce people's privacy right now through metadata and other means. But phones can be lost and left at home. A technology that merges with man theoretically increases safety and security. It is precise and can be implemented with failsafes to guarantee its tied the right person. </p><p>The how of this reality is more curious. If this sort of state were implemented overnight at the direction of government, it would be more easily considered some fascist sign of the endtimes. Instead it will be slowburn. Probably it will stem from the excuse of keeping children and property safe backed by the middle class. Then it will be for the sick, to track their vital signs as a preventative measure. Next could be government officials because the sensitive nature of their work and security clearances. Once critical mass is reached, those still resisting, will be squeezed by way of denied conveniences. At some point it's likely everyone has a HUD, giving you information about yourself and strangers they willingly share. Anyone without a chip will be seen with extreme suspicion. </p><p>How far does it go? Lets say you're a #nochipper, a harsh renegade, still using a flip phone in 2047. None of the conveniences could get you. Depending on how far computer technology advances, it won't matter. As high tech advancements are birthed into our reality, you're going to need them just to fight off the potential threat of these machines manipulated by criminals. If it isn't Big Brother after you, you're compromised by your ratting Little Brother neighbors. Save that, you can be barred from certain experiences or from accessibly communicating with the tech'd up.<br /></p><p>There is no viable escape. In a world with increasing technology and automation there's increased need for accountability. Just think of the amount of bodycam footage and cellphone video changing the landscape of media and helping to solve crimes. With its promise to curb violent crime and terrorism it's an easy sell. What was it Benjamin Franklin said, "People who trade a lot of liberty for a little security are absolutely bang on."<br /></p><span style="color: #444444;">Thoughts on this will be expanded upon in controversial upcoming article <i>Ted Kaczynski was wrong</i></span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-29568312716296954712021-05-06T03:14:00.000-05:002021-05-06T03:14:55.823-05:00An article about how almost everything ever written is absolutely wrong<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5e_XDtXiKr7Ol8_EjwpfDIMm45WsAM5-PC4mRpGYUI6CIvDiNZlWQhAg8ie8a4_C_OMU7wUEV0HgkMAb2YHaqZlAM3SJUI74VZVS95SxAszLRhY904E2rSiFfliiWxBA7JZV-Hb5168SD/s600/galaxy+brain+fricking+man.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="600" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5e_XDtXiKr7Ol8_EjwpfDIMm45WsAM5-PC4mRpGYUI6CIvDiNZlWQhAg8ie8a4_C_OMU7wUEV0HgkMAb2YHaqZlAM3SJUI74VZVS95SxAszLRhY904E2rSiFfliiWxBA7JZV-Hb5168SD/w640-h426/galaxy+brain+fricking+man.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">visual representation of me coming up with excuses for not writing well<br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Everything written is wrong. It is only natural that almost everything
ever written is wrong. Language itself is not perfect, let alone
interpretations of language or grammatical errors. How many perfect
sentences have ever been written. Let alone paragraphs. Let alone an
entire chapter. Let alone an entire book. There are errors in thinking.
There are errors in scientific studies, errors in reporting, errors of
shortsightedness, errors in the scientific method itself and its
interpretations. And yet despite our fumbling attempts to communicate,
great leaps in reason have been made and remarkable inventions. This is
in short a poor attempt to justify mistakes and rugged edges. This is
an acknowledgement of the reality of large blind spots, biases, and
likely irrational circular forms of reasoning that don't even have
scientific names yet such as hindsight bias. It seems not enough authors
tell and explain this. It's a point that should be reiterated until
dull: a person's best work is their best hunch. The reason scientific
reasoning often fails by examining the objective world is because it
makes little to no attempt to account for the subjective mind of its
audience. Therefore every text is a go-by, when accounting for the
nearly endless variables of individual subjective human experience. By
speaking in declarative statements that leave no room for variance or
interpretation, people can close the very minds they wish to open. You
see this in the zealotry of partisan politics (social political and moral
extremes, polarization), for people who live by one book: people who
have found not an answer, but <i>the </i>answer. This system may work for
people to a degree, but does not allow for fluid change which is what an
active mind does. Scientists and philosophers are often speaking with
wisdom gained through their own personal experience, and declare what
works for them to be what should be what works for all. This is why
knowledge should always be questioned, with the reader or listener
having the final say. A more worthwhile author might tell you his or her
hunches or show you a path, but the only sane way forward is when the reader decides if it's traveled.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-91492145402602091562021-05-06T03:02:00.002-05:002021-05-06T15:33:05.383-05:00Ideas on ideas<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz2TxJE_aHySNjPD771C6drBLs5NXusscJRV-tF6CdQmb9oP3nEzSJizZEMpbgQ8QzOdbmTOfZVml5gZOIuOMdCq7KiMu_qUJxrST2L5HaI2vBRnxYQ4GHvRtSHBCpXnnXDi0MIgF-14zj/s1024/ultimate+galaxy+brain+takes.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="619" data-original-width="1024" height="386" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz2TxJE_aHySNjPD771C6drBLs5NXusscJRV-tF6CdQmb9oP3nEzSJizZEMpbgQ8QzOdbmTOfZVml5gZOIuOMdCq7KiMu_qUJxrST2L5HaI2vBRnxYQ4GHvRtSHBCpXnnXDi0MIgF-14zj/w640-h386/ultimate+galaxy+brain+takes.jpg" title="A non-simulated photo of my brain thinking up this article" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A non-simulated photo of my brain thinking up this article</td></tr></tbody></table>What's the easiest thing to steal? You might think first a pack of gum.
Continue to think, maybe a pen from work. Or go step further, a
paperclip. Eventually you make your way down to an idea. Ideas are
almost Bluetooth'd brain-to-brain. There's an idea for something which
will inevitably exist. If you yawn, often you'll notice people begin to
yawn around you. People also pick up on and copy ticks. Ideas are
contagious, especially if they're clever or good. (A distinction was
necessary, as intelligence and morality have no innate correlation.) No
matter how big or small, if they are heard out loud, actionable, or written
down, their spread is inevitable. Let's try one. <br /><br />Most work is a recurring nightmare you must learn to wake from. <br /> <br /> There's truth
in it: it's repetitious, it induces dread in thinking persons, and
it's vaguely funny. The only way my catchy phrase doesn't take off is
if it exists already. That idea wasn't stolen, if it is, it's parallel
thinking. Parallel thinking likely comes from our vast society of open
and stolen secrets and ideas. Sometimes we get hit with a plethora of
new ideas in a new movie, some piece of art, some political figure
shares his ideas or opinions, sometimes a meme is made. Ideas are the
basis of that which shapes societies. That's not provably true, it's an idea.
But you can intuit the basic logic behind it. "I think, therefore I am." Anything else requires speculation and contemplation, or thinking, which
is the one and only prerequisite for an idea. Societies are shaped by
communities which are shaped by shared values. And what are values? A
set of principles on how people and conflicts should be considered and
governed. These are basic ideas about ideas. <br /><br />I bring this up
because there is this bothersome idea that ideas are precious or worthless.
I've heard most people take their good ideas and inventions to the
grave. Why? Perhaps they fear their ideas will be stolen, or worse,
are not worth sharing to begin with. People try to pretend around this.
But even the greatest minds it seems their greatness revolved around a few
revolutionary thoughts. Isaac Newton had an idea about gravity. Einstein
had an idea about the speed of light. Camus had an idea around suffering. All ideas in their essence are
public domain, especially the remarkable ones, being so intuitive
they're impossible to forget. <br /><br />How many people's lives have been
saved by good ideas? We'll never know, because a lot of those good ideas
were thought of and implemented before anything bad could happen. How do
you gauge who deserves the merit? Who is our greatest mind: Isaac
Newton, or his mom, or the first caveman to utter some sort of
communication that began language? You can't have calculus without
numbers. Three grunts means there's three apples over here. That's how
language started, a distant relative of Tim Allen's character on <i>Home Improvement</i> spoke in his native tongue to convey an idea. Perhaps
he thought, "If the apple is falling, is the moon also falling?" but he
didn't have the grunts to express it like Newton and received none of the credit.<br /><br />It's
difficult if not impossible to quantify merit and creativity. Sure, you
can get a sense for it. Some people it's clear drip with creativity.
Some people are so conscientious and concise they are engineers,
creating value systems and rules, lubricating the gears for creative
thoughts and behaviors. Is it any less or any different of a kind of
creativity to engage in? Or are they different routes to the
same goal? Does a score need to be taken, and would that be something of value?
It's clear that order has social utility. It helps me convey this now which is little more than a series of grunts. <br /><br />We see great
competition in and for social status. If you're a bit inclined toward the
shallow, you keep up with the Joneses, and you want a bigger house and
a car that's a shinier red. If you're a little more informed, you might
want to be known as the most charitable. Or if you're truly humble and
God-like, you want to do good with indifference to acclaim, and only
secretly hope someone finds out about your altruism. There
is an order of competence. You trust people with a PhD because that's
not easy thing to steal. You trust celebrities because you think you
know them, or further, they're your friend. You trust family often,
because they have given you a lot of the extraordinarily valuable asset
that is <i>time</i>. You trust name brands because they're worth a billion
dollars, and one scandal can cause them a lot of that money. Money might
be the third greatest predictor of behavior after greed and fear. There's a reason so many problems can be solved under the adage <i>follow
the money</i>. Money itself comes with respect, if you earned it, or if it
gave you a good education, or if you have so much of it you can freely
speak your mind. <br /><br />It seems humankind is inching towards a
meritocracy with every action. Something that combines the popular vote
of a democratic system with success under capitalism, with social
status, with moral rigor. Billions of lives want to have the best
possible life they can have, which is a constant, unending pursuit. It
manifest itself in different ways. The self-centered quality of social
media. The polarization of opinions in an increasingly connected world
where anyone can have a voice. Right now we are in a knives out stage of
capitalism. The most common desirable destination among kids is to be
famous. There's not a lot of morality and merit, and there is much meanspiritedness and oneupsmanship. Beneath those shallow waves there's hopefully a slower and more powerful undercurrent of people driven to do right.<br /><br />And
ideas shouldn't be neglected as worthless. No one pays for print like
they used to. Information is cheap now, because ideas are the easiest
they have ever been to spread. The good aspect is the cost of entry for
anyone is quite low, and in a fair enough system, the chance for good ideas to succeed is high. We are in a slow burn singularity of sorts, a
work in progress. The entire planet beta tests for a future that could
be more grand than billions could imagine collectively, or it could end
itself entirely. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-8533642729967957972021-05-06T02:22:00.002-05:002021-05-06T15:27:42.038-05:00An autobiography of ideas<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfVMjrNUtO9luNmJee9BOKswqRpjwwyvW8IS3vCM9HKkImXlVdvKe4Y7v5S6_RwmnkRQEk6-DEvsIADCxT-6085iyrTALbOYmn-PkjXJIWx3IfA5-IhHF_gDgs_NoT54Gq78KtKXCrPiXx/s2048/penguin+lonely+encounters+at+the+end+of+the+world+herzog.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1152" data-original-width="2048" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfVMjrNUtO9luNmJee9BOKswqRpjwwyvW8IS3vCM9HKkImXlVdvKe4Y7v5S6_RwmnkRQEk6-DEvsIADCxT-6085iyrTALbOYmn-PkjXJIWx3IfA5-IhHF_gDgs_NoT54Gq78KtKXCrPiXx/w640-h360/penguin+lonely+encounters+at+the+end+of+the+world+herzog.png" width="640" /></a>A
conscious human being has to be defined at their core as thoughts, then
ideas, which lead to more specifically their choices or the illusion of
said choices. That's what makes up our interaction with shared material
reality. Us at our roots are ideas that lead to decisions. A preference
of "yes" or "no" is the most often binary decision. Now, the rest of this
will play out as a short autobiographical text of my version of this
mental landscape in order to help myself or any potential reader.<div><br /></div><div>If
I could describe my "ecstatic truth" or the prime motivator, the
generator behind these ideas that lead to actions, it would be a scene
in <i>Encounters at the End of the World</i>, a documentary about life in
Antarctica. There are scenes of penguins in migration, staying safe in routine and their patterns to ensure survival. There is a stray
penguin headed toward endless wilderness. Outside his tribe, he will
die. It is said if he were removed by human hands and taken back, he
would merely return the same way and begin the same path anew. It
strikes me there is something telling about this. No one knows if the
being is aware of his fate. If that question can be asked, so too, the
question of his fate with the routine of the tribe. There could merit to an evolutionary truth in this anomalous behavior. Any sort of
substantial change is predicated on atypical behaviors. The actions are
high-risk and high reward. This is not an example of going against the
grain, which ironically enough has been made cookie cutter and the flirtation
with contrarianism is commonplace. It is not drawing
outside the lines but perhaps punching a hole through the page. The
conclusion could be something new, or end in ruin. This entails an
inclination to a transgressive type of behavior. No one is qualified to do something if it's groundbreaking, by definition [Watson].<br /><br />It's hard to
explain the utility in this behavior. It could be a handicap that
sometimes proves useful with the right environment and luck. Or it could
be a series of choices based on environmental circumstances that lend
itself to mentally playing the lottery, sometimes aided by magical
thinking. Everyone who has experienced bad luck wants to win small. They only dream of great luck. Winning small is middle class,
working as a subordinate, and investing in an index fund returning a reliable 11% a
year. Bad luck wants the parity reached by good fortune to
even things out with good luck. It's fantastical and mostly lacks
utility. But is it magical thinking if it's so commonplace? A life
without the faintest flicker of a hope or a dream I don't want to
imagine, nor would I consider it life. The penguin may not consider
his mortality. Most people hedge their bets, but the heights of their
success by these parameters may still be lukewarm. Then, some go against
the grain with some unusual trade or begin their own business. Then
there are the lucky who seldom have to worry, born rich they can even
buy acclaim as "entrepreneurs." And then there are some who gamble
between winning and desolate poverty and dead-end social status. For them, winning
is not only on financial terms, it could be a meaningful artistic
contribution or a scientific discovery. <br /><br />The beauty of existence
is in these decisions that allow for total expression in our limited binary of choice. Science and
reason may be preached but magical thinking is the status quo. Hope is
an uncontrollable contagion. Even the most rationally-minded thinkers
and writers delved into these areas where reason is beyond reach. Those
who fail are not a net loss. They are part of the only way to innovation. They teach by informing use what not to do.
The problem with scientific literacy is it works best on the initiated,
and it may be impossible to lasso the rope of reason over a
predisposition to irrationality. If this is the case, pinpointing how to
navigate objective reality is a lot trickier than it appears. Your
ideas are influenced by these psychic muddy waters, and you don't know
what contaminants are in the mind of the person or collective you're
communicating with. We know so little, there may be more to be gleaned
in studying people's interest in astrology and wrestling than studying astronomy
and Shakespeare.
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-60744497037816447492021-04-05T09:38:00.004-05:002021-04-05T09:40:57.926-05:00Not playing video games is immature<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO7KzfhyphenhyphenvvVBJbO3QU0Gho4-WiE5RV5CBJn-3dBccbvqrJKC8tcoYwkojR3uYfWqe8BqbA7c5xGi959TdZJWVYxeZPsjM-IZoPQSIJNFEBx6eiYB1gPUMwrg9XEZ5rika6G6aTayH42NXc/s1743/grover.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1279" data-original-width="1743" height="470" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO7KzfhyphenhyphenvvVBJbO3QU0Gho4-WiE5RV5CBJn-3dBccbvqrJKC8tcoYwkojR3uYfWqe8BqbA7c5xGi959TdZJWVYxeZPsjM-IZoPQSIJNFEBx6eiYB1gPUMwrg9XEZ5rika6G6aTayH42NXc/w640-h470/grover.png" width="640" /></a>People who don't video game are losers, they're also wicked immature. It's immature not to. Many want to be seen as an adult. If your primary concern is <i>seeming </i>like an adult, it means you aren't one, and lack the maturity to be what you are without shame. Video games are fun for all ages. Who never had fun as they watched a child chase an invaluable Pokemon in <i>Pokemon Go!</i> that you unleashed in the center of a six-lane highway? And there you stood gleefully with your binoculars on a nearby grassy knoll as you made someone else play <i>Frogger </i>and caused a seven-car pile up. <br /></p>People negate the great indoors at their own peril. If shut-ins are bad, shut-outs may be worse. Realistically globalization is leading to the homogenization of culture and learning. And yes, experience is important, traveling, seeing the world, but the bigger picture, cosmic way to examine the world has always been led by the atomic study of things. Extroverts prefer the bigger scale, the day-to-day, and experience. The small scale is the inverted look at things preferred by introverts, such as the study of philosophy, and literature and arts. But the formats are polluted. Only post-pandemic are people serious about online learning, for example. If we have popstar singers, writers, and performers, it stands to reason we would have popstar educators so exceptional their courses should be reaching and teaching millions. If education is expensive, hands-<i>off </i>learning of rehashed ideas and textbooks are arbitrarily updated to sell more copies, there can be alternatives to the form. Text is seen as the holy grail because it's words, meaning everyone on Twitter is rich and smart and everyone on Twitch is poor and stupid. It's the opposite. A video game can be text-based, but it can also contain videos, music, and also be hands-on instructional. Most learning is not this.<br /><br />In the real world, work-life balance, yadda, "gyms are important," fraternize, socialize, and send your child to a summer camp ran by Jared Fogle, whatever gives them the lived experience to write a memoir. But there are only so many life experiences, this is why art and its fantasy are popular in the first place. Yes escapism is bad as is overindulgence in most anything. To hammer against it completely is a mistake. Anything that helps with imagination and ideas is generally a good thing. There's countless scientists and entrepreneurs now who speak of the influence of shows like <i>Star Trek</i> or <i>The Twilight Zone</i>. The real world for most people isn't a nomadic state of ever-changing experiences. Most people's lives are static. They are routine. Drive to work, drive home, eat out, visit family and friends, clean, fret over responsibilities, and do your zero-to-three hobbies. Doing extracurricular things requires time, planning, and money that often people don't just have, if it's possible to do those activities in real life at all. With a VR headset or a monitor you can experience becoming a spree killer or living as a viking. <p></p><p>There's also the history of gaming. Sports is gaming. When the Aztecs would play soccer with decapitated heads it was the original <i>Rocket League.</i> <i>Tetris </i>is based on a Russian sort of dominos. Casinos and cards, checkers and chess are all the same thing just often less sophisticated. Chess is a poor man's <i>Valorant</i>, only, the gatekeeping schizophrenics who play chess and live on a park bench and think the barista at Starbucks is in love with him because she put a heart on his cup get to sound sophisticated while knocking over a toy horse with a toy castle. Nerds. And if they were on Twitch I'd roast their banal comparisons of every societal problem to the fall of the Roman Empire and they'd get even more catatonic and seek more council from the second voice in their head. No mercy for the older, either. The same people who thought video games created violence were playing BINGO. Bingo relies only on your ability to remember numbers, likely a damning condemnation of our public school system where remembering dates is the most anyone learned, people left trying to gamify the one skill they were programmed with. If you updated to <i>Candy Crush</i> perhaps you'd be fun enough your loved ones wouldn't put you in a home to begin with.<br /></p><p> Aside from the odd title, I never played video games in my twenties and before with any regularity. Typically they didn't have much story and the basis was combative and an attempt to defeat the enemy. Now the spontaneous creation, mixed in tandem with literal millions of potential online co-inhabitants surpasses anything I can think of in terms of group-learning complexity. I mean, you're creating essentially a second world, a cloned and artificial reality for which to experiment to any end. The subsequent potential for education is limitless. No role-playing scenario in a school can compete. There's nothing that could be say, more telling in a simplified way than exploring a domesticated life in <i>Stardew Valley</i>. The idea that as a young person you could faux start a business and learn about the this gradual progression in a safe and fun way and how to profit using a min-max system is invaluable. Plus you can put a hat on your horse.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5wLojvResHuv4V3Y4TZo1JlnEJWSZQZ-Xfrocv-jIvL0NJERO1gtII-wLVth-Nqj0JWA00S0qudb9hxBinS6Cc0o-U3-2dimylvV89_bUuLJna9TvAzRxTwCWVjdcR7FVbCcLsdW3RLeh/s753/stardew+min+max+chart.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="753" data-original-width="603" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5wLojvResHuv4V3Y4TZo1JlnEJWSZQZ-Xfrocv-jIvL0NJERO1gtII-wLVth-Nqj0JWA00S0qudb9hxBinS6Cc0o-U3-2dimylvV89_bUuLJna9TvAzRxTwCWVjdcR7FVbCcLsdW3RLeh/s320/stardew+min+max+chart.png" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">min max ex.<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Education is most effective with interest, and with this I see it becoming gamified. Think of what happens when online learning takes over, and the millions government takes from people for campuses and books is converted to fun learning programs. Naturally when given the choice between education and education that isn't boring people will choose the latter. With virtual reality headsets slowly reaching critical mass this reality is an inevitability. Even if none of this were true, you'd still be dumb for sleeping on a form of entertainment where a single game generated more revenue than any other media ever has, and ignoring for some reason a cultural heavyweight phenomenon and removing it from your vocabulary as a reference. For those engaged, they will have the ability to contextualize if not directly create the future. For the naysayers out there, please understand if you cannot find a video game you enjoy to spend time with it is because you are too dim-witted and unimaginative to glean any value from it, and you're worse for it. <br /></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-37113858582708891212021-03-04T12:15:00.004-06:002021-03-04T12:15:56.887-06:00Paintballing as a resolution to war<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPYkpzZuf2ATkUsN0rEROe1QMwNjhIf9LDg1w6PHuWNFRxhHs7qFJ8YLMab4urPqG2JGfLLfrKwhi9cCqsTYVOVIP1s5ERLepRhl6UN14u9GGGcNiDJ7Qv5RM3CbhvMSwqT47hWJ7Ur8DT/s1200/paintball+god+war.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="1200" height="336" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPYkpzZuf2ATkUsN0rEROe1QMwNjhIf9LDg1w6PHuWNFRxhHs7qFJ8YLMab4urPqG2JGfLLfrKwhi9cCqsTYVOVIP1s5ERLepRhl6UN14u9GGGcNiDJ7Qv5RM3CbhvMSwqT47hWJ7Ur8DT/w640-h336/paintball+god+war.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>This is how you change war. Now, as has been said, war is a continuation of politics by other means. War is the “civil” median to solve problems with violence. And yet there are rules and “war crimes,” certain acts cannot be committed. You have rules dictating the ethical ways in which you can murder and imprison your enemies. It was finally taken seriously after WWII with the Geneva Convention.<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-paragraph-type: empty; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><br /></p>
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">But if we can agree not to use chemical weapons, why can’t we take it a step further and make the rules of war more stringent? This is the simple new rule: all future wars are one civilized paintballing tournament.</p><p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"> </p><p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">This will be great for several reasons:</p>
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-paragraph-type: empty; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><br /></p>
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">1. The most important of which is we can now profit from wars. I mean, not in the traditional sense of stealing natural resources, weapons contracts, securing the dollar as the reserve currency and maintaining power consolidations. We can air war footage, live and in real time. This is good, because with On-Demand streaming services no one wants to watch commercials anymore, this is a reason to tune into basic cable and more of an “event” to share, new wars will begin #trending in no time.</p>
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-paragraph-type: empty; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><br /></p>
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">Because war is driven by petty, primitive behavior, all war-time paintballs, paint bombs, and paintbrushes (knives) are legally required to be an emasculating “hot pink” in color. There will be NO MORE flag burning, either. Instead, you must take your opponents flag and wash it with a basket of red underwear until it achieves the correct rosy hue. </p>
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><br />Atomic paintbombs will blow this acrid color all over leaving cities and towns demoralized. Dejected men will walk around like barbies, slathered in this repulsive paint, more traumatized than if their platoon had actually died. You were defeated, and the town you knew your entire life is now a concrete rose garden. Worst of all your sisters, mothers and wives will say, “Maybe this defeat isn’t such a big deal after all,” as the hit up their local Hobby Lobby to find matching drapes.<br /><br /> This brings us to another fair point.</p>
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8O2H8aE8E8Ym_kCMFCS79KhSCYV-7X7QjLmpxGCOlY3kwQjqzWSpTLM1kQ4D4GpppaMTaKVIiSjjmatdXdVXPkvDGimD1UXomM3otVLS1B92AFm2PkvVSfE_ewfzsvCsCFuVEM7RDCbYO/s900/pink+statue+of+liberty.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="506" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8O2H8aE8E8Ym_kCMFCS79KhSCYV-7X7QjLmpxGCOlY3kwQjqzWSpTLM1kQ4D4GpppaMTaKVIiSjjmatdXdVXPkvDGimD1UXomM3otVLS1B92AFm2PkvVSfE_ewfzsvCsCFuVEM7RDCbYO/s320/pink+statue+of+liberty.jpg" /></a></div><br />2. Paint-war will bring about breast cancer awareness. Why not tie it in? Apparently, no one’s aware of breast cancer. This is the true apocalyptic landscape. In all future dystopian movies you’ll have a shot of the pink statue of liberty.<p></p>
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-paragraph-type: empty; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><br /></p>
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">3. People will still die. People will slip and die as the streets run pink with the “blood” of war. Paintbombs will kill and maim. Spraypaint like napalm will leave soldiers blinded. There will be deaths from shrapnel. </p><p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"> </p><p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">Of course, activist groups will complain this is inhumane, but on the daily there are terrorist bombings, beheadings, and dead soldiers, but they are only really upset this ruins the mood of the alone time with their caviar-scented vibrators.<br /><br />4. The mainstream media can remain relevant. Second to only the military-industrial complex is the media-industrial complex. They align lockstep with government historically, playing into xenophobic fears and profiting from advertising revenue as they siphon a sense of importance from tepid reportage. Without war, there is no self-aggrandizing moralism to use as a platform to place themselves above the masses.</p><p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"> </p><p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHaLARnj7_DQMF0ukCNEXf2XeGTARmxgkjz9hn_mEBOwvS_e4G-hx5lUbiRdJwdHOxIB5WBfp7t-33BdrfRuLn2T5tsQEGICqvbKypKJs3RpdWX8OPWtTY7iwb8eo9HWL_ObSry6r6OYhN/s1080/hip+war+torn+city.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHaLARnj7_DQMF0ukCNEXf2XeGTARmxgkjz9hn_mEBOwvS_e4G-hx5lUbiRdJwdHOxIB5WBfp7t-33BdrfRuLn2T5tsQEGICqvbKypKJs3RpdWX8OPWtTY7iwb8eo9HWL_ObSry6r6OYhN/s320/hip+war+torn+city.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">image of future city destroyed by war<br /></td></tr></tbody></table>5. War-torn cities of the future still quite livable. Look up some photos of post war societies after foreign interventionism. The devastating toll is incalculable. Perhaps the rainbow roaded, post-war towns of the future will be the impetus for some real reflection on the true cost of war.<br /><br />6. It doesn’t have to end at war. It can be fitted to gangland shootings. Spree killers might be cool for once. Members of society mimic their culture. Losers like Nikolas Cruz might think twice next time and instead go for a paintball shooting spree. Sure, they would get expelled and lose most future job prospects, but they would get their point across in a safer way and after a couple years probation they could be interviewed on Good Morning America on why they attacked church goers with waterballoons full of lead house paint.<br /><br />Add any additional reasons in the comments, as this is a brilliant idea but also a work-in-progress. <br /><p></p><style type="text/css">p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }</style>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-20556338344740322022021-03-04T12:06:00.003-06:002021-03-04T12:08:09.234-06:00Top 9 Famous Homes I'll Live InMost of these are from movies because I don't research iconic houses<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-3vkNuhv_t_UOe8GyFtrumMbULaZZ-9hxQtPQTzdAdsZ5wGJQtqm6vpxsvDVihyphenhyphenwkmD4i6cZv5zUcOpN-PXjZB-LdrBpbdjVnIE4O8kCMXu5vlEUUjStt412xirMdobUwqrx8-8127x98/s1254/facture+house+movie+2007.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-3vkNuhv_t_UOe8GyFtrumMbULaZZ-9hxQtPQTzdAdsZ5wGJQtqm6vpxsvDVihyphenhyphenwkmD4i6cZv5zUcOpN-PXjZB-LdrBpbdjVnIE4O8kCMXu5vlEUUjStt412xirMdobUwqrx8-8127x98/s320/facture+house+movie+2007.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>This house which I forgot the name of<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix96ZKlEB8gEEvSvh8vk6styiP6O0t7VJ_9vopoK-DwOF6kBZ1F4_y3AhPopGw1fytPfOB21iXfzXq3nZfZNhbU3mU9I-GF7OGVjOPVIa1a4FgoBk5TNzUjf-yuuZPcsyKbdnKAb9tj9B6/s599/the+footclan+lair+from+tmnt.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="326" data-original-width="599" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix96ZKlEB8gEEvSvh8vk6styiP6O0t7VJ_9vopoK-DwOF6kBZ1F4_y3AhPopGw1fytPfOB21iXfzXq3nZfZNhbU3mU9I-GF7OGVjOPVIa1a4FgoBk5TNzUjf-yuuZPcsyKbdnKAb9tj9B6/s320/the+footclan+lair+from+tmnt.webp" width="320" /></a></div>The underground lair from TMNT<br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikvQipmf2xwoToSvOLQwHlaKiwzopIjOl6SqOWs9BdaPdzlS0B_MeF9MNssQZtjsAQEMFH-WtqZiPBfMdbcbps5SjIOPvxY7-ZI4fRKDVJOXe6drrHCtZIUTahL7Uau6QSnClbgatNXfW5/s1280/jackie+treehorn+house+in+the+big+lebowski.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="854" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikvQipmf2xwoToSvOLQwHlaKiwzopIjOl6SqOWs9BdaPdzlS0B_MeF9MNssQZtjsAQEMFH-WtqZiPBfMdbcbps5SjIOPvxY7-ZI4fRKDVJOXe6drrHCtZIUTahL7Uau6QSnClbgatNXfW5/s320/jackie+treehorn+house+in+the+big+lebowski.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Jackie Treehorn house<br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyWUB9SB24tUo5S5DXuFGh6WROkDIhbiCWPdTaXNP6zAku94RFZqXG3MceauQUBPfCspFCOS88wNEI00wwXzwYSl8eNpKEbEwIXGbHPht0ePvfwr4zxbuvzhXC0GEEhBrx1w6U0v4Pu7bF/s936/Shulman+house.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="381" data-original-width="936" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyWUB9SB24tUo5S5DXuFGh6WROkDIhbiCWPdTaXNP6zAku94RFZqXG3MceauQUBPfCspFCOS88wNEI00wwXzwYSl8eNpKEbEwIXGbHPht0ePvfwr4zxbuvzhXC0GEEhBrx1w6U0v4Pu7bF/s320/Shulman+house.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>Plagiarist fraud Jonah Lehrer owns the cool iconic Shulman House and goes to show you dishonesty pays<br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3fDl_RZ5_ExIyTe9q_f4HM-q7oCH75kDfH9HOSWslXIr7LNWXqYvs3aCthQvkf8v61azYgmKjK1Vz_CH0YCOKB1n1hf6WsvEy_yRb-6anvHJHUiT_RlvBkX4fM4uwASMziWT9C8yHewV8/s728/the+house+from+parasite.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="485" data-original-width="728" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3fDl_RZ5_ExIyTe9q_f4HM-q7oCH75kDfH9HOSWslXIr7LNWXqYvs3aCthQvkf8v61azYgmKjK1Vz_CH0YCOKB1n1hf6WsvEy_yRb-6anvHJHUiT_RlvBkX4fM4uwASMziWT9C8yHewV8/s320/the+house+from+parasite.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>The House from Parasite<br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSKNjhyTmnR-9mN5yzRHvA3SWcFL9fjmm3X2yppXW7vwOzvqkFD49zVTr2dnIkP0X144NJs4mv1xoToP27K4et28jvR1mSN4Mg4Dm1GChu7WVacqUe1tRYnGZAJZ-f1DSLI_wjwv9Z4bfc/s697/zabriskie+point+house.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="697" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSKNjhyTmnR-9mN5yzRHvA3SWcFL9fjmm3X2yppXW7vwOzvqkFD49zVTr2dnIkP0X144NJs4mv1xoToP27K4et28jvR1mSN4Mg4Dm1GChu7WVacqUe1tRYnGZAJZ-f1DSLI_wjwv9Z4bfc/s320/zabriskie+point+house.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Zabriskie Point House - Featured in the movie and blown up, this was likely the inspiration for the Iron Man house and which was subsequently blown up. Also a cool abode used by Orson Welles movie and the documentary <i>They'll Love Me When I'm Dead<br /><br /></i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3RFRt3IiqFVLXcsWLum7bqj6mSixG4L1eVM7oKhVsK6eozaKeKRwONbduZJkzYfb8uaKpHGMcriWMq6xl2TR-YP9yjaH_hjoAgByjeh5yJdTo9iDsWuQAUwRYt06CfdGNw07YGX19ynew/s1024/the+house+shadow+gallery+from+v+for+vendetta.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="632" data-original-width="1024" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3RFRt3IiqFVLXcsWLum7bqj6mSixG4L1eVM7oKhVsK6eozaKeKRwONbduZJkzYfb8uaKpHGMcriWMq6xl2TR-YP9yjaH_hjoAgByjeh5yJdTo9iDsWuQAUwRYt06CfdGNw07YGX19ynew/s320/the+house+shadow+gallery+from+v+for+vendetta.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>Shadow Gallery is a chill joint<br /><br /> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdxF1aqAAYrdT4o0OHDwxWIKBW0DzRwUXogq5oWClq2hfyg2Y0GRWT4HVxwCJiEM4hWRIf1r5LSvZ6mOKz0i_KMN24JzYkwIqkb7TKJ23Ki3BztiMsRXLskRKSKiHRlQbaR1tfW5GG4n-p/s1200/the+house+from+tron.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1012" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdxF1aqAAYrdT4o0OHDwxWIKBW0DzRwUXogq5oWClq2hfyg2Y0GRWT4HVxwCJiEM4hWRIf1r5LSvZ6mOKz0i_KMN24JzYkwIqkb7TKJ23Ki3BztiMsRXLskRKSKiHRlQbaR1tfW5GG4n-p/s320/the+house+from+tron.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>A rare good thing about the movie <i>Tron<br /></i><br /><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdMF1Nk_wbdcaSyUEAInl0eRx1YWIvB3LceWkSl1ZI0kx_PDKkjKL69wRd3S7K_2I7GqW994VDtzqyYLR1tnETVDDtcNuSnqVMTyV5RK3bLiyeWgQMW3ee-eQo3uKUE6SeDliWbcSQNEsk/s1200/ex+machina+house.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="799" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdMF1Nk_wbdcaSyUEAInl0eRx1YWIvB3LceWkSl1ZI0kx_PDKkjKL69wRd3S7K_2I7GqW994VDtzqyYLR1tnETVDDtcNuSnqVMTyV5RK3bLiyeWgQMW3ee-eQo3uKUE6SeDliWbcSQNEsk/s320/ex+machina+house.png" width="320" /></a></div><p> <i>Ex Machina</i> home w/robot maids<br /><br /><br />Realistically they're all by Frank Lloyd Wright rather than these big windowed whore houses for voyeurists <br /></p><p><br />
</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-17895906389429226602021-02-22T06:07:00.008-06:002021-03-05T01:26:45.129-06:00On Eyes Wide Shut<p><span style="color: #666666;">warning: written hastily and poorly.</span><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtdfsiiQbC0ohrD12cAu_Q342NUko3wqD8_t5OXKI7qVZfvdGevxFkYKi-3Q2TdaoHpNIg79qut-cfPn7fqE4GZ2X2coM9dcWrCQ6RaHVywt0aDPKubP86efe_BGkaiQXqgeFZihCH6JjL/s1200/kubrack.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtdfsiiQbC0ohrD12cAu_Q342NUko3wqD8_t5OXKI7qVZfvdGevxFkYKi-3Q2TdaoHpNIg79qut-cfPn7fqE4GZ2X2coM9dcWrCQ6RaHVywt0aDPKubP86efe_BGkaiQXqgeFZihCH6JjL/w640-h426/kubrack.jpg" width="640" /></a><br /><br />First a disclaimer: the rated vers. of this movie is an abomination. don't see it.<br /><br />What stands out in Eyes Wide Shut, and seems to evade most, is the fantasy <span style="text-align: left;">element in the movie. That it's based on a novel titled Dreamstory should give that away. It's not just fantasy in storytelling but about the subject of fantasy in its characters. Most get hung-up on wild theories and absurd extrapolations.</span></div><p>Still, it's a personal story and Kubrick's only love story. Its personal having recreated Kubrick's NY apartment home, with the walls adorned with his living wife's artwork. It's personal in that the intimacy shared on screen by its protagonists was real, being a then-married couple, and this choice seems to blend reality and fiction. They even slept together on set in their for-cinema bed, for the on-time during the longest movie shoot in history. The personal nature of the film and its dissection of intimate matters puts you in a strange sort of comfort, along with the theme of Christmas permeating most every aspect of the film. Despite its strangeness and often unnerving imagery, the main thing I take away from the movie is an overwhelming warmth. It did not surprise me, and I felt this beforehand, that many critics can now recognize Eyes Wide Shut as a surreal Christmas movie. It's a strange movie I will argue celebrates the normal.<br /><br />All this is backed up by the nudity of the opening scene. The "realness" is made more real when the thumping movie score is turned off on screen via an on-set stereo. Sure it is about fantasy, but as with any Kubrick movie it's grounded in reality. The main arch of the movie is in the sexual hangups and issues of jealously that can keep couples apart, but also about the secrecy of individual desire and its ability as a potent source of drive, potentially inciting even Alice to leave her family behind. It's about the suppression of those desires, the suppression of lust that Dr. Bill experiences particularly. This is one reason why I believe the edited version of this film to be one of the greatest sins of all of cinema. The entire film is about dead-end sexual frustration and failed conquests, and the movie climaxes in the middle of the film with an orgy, but the sex while completely decadent counterpoints his quests with its complete lifelessness and emotional detachment. The entire movie is a case of blue balls and the one release is so graphic yet cold, the images of sex are as meaningless as everything else. In the crime against humanity that is the edited version, you are denied the feeling of seeing humanity stripped naked in a stunted release, essentially neutering the entire message of the movie. <br /><br />Kubrick seemingly throws in so many subliminal messages into the movie it's impossible to spot them all. The most obvious ones come with the hooker, with the 'introducing sociology' book and the newspaper that reads, 'lucky to be alive.' This is something Kubrick seems to have added to movie the movie fun and add to the opacity which is in line with its theme. Kubrick seems to want to you to play into the crisis of mystery his characters are having. This leads to the basic interpretation I've always had of the movie.<br /><br />While deliberately ambiguous, I believe the story is as follows: Alice talks about art, which Sandor mentions he can help with. Though Alice is faithful to Dr. Bill at least on paper and in his eyes, she gives away a bit early in the movie by answering Sandor with a vague "maybe" during his attempt at sexual conquest. The dream she tells to Dr. Bill is also oddly specific. I believe she was at the party and possibly participated. A nanny is established in the movie, as well as Helena's mention of a watchdog which means her mom could have left her frightened and alone. Dr. Bill is unique in his trusting nature where as Alice sees this is a point of contention and jealously. She does not believe he does not have the same fantasies she does. This could be why she is crying at the end when Bill comes clean, where his misadventures and fantasies are still relatively quaint. Alice's friendship with with Ziegler could also give a plausible explanation for the mask on the bed. Adding to the weight of this, the acting in the sacrificial scene is so over the top I don't think Kubrick would allow it.<br /><br />The picture ends fittingly reiterating the theme that the totality of their relationship and life experience is not defined by a night but also that fantasy (or dreams) are not necessarily meaningless and can be indicative of a person's true character. If the theory is correct I think it strengthens the film, outside of fun ambiguity, because it undercuts the fantasy elements and you're left with the raw emotional drive of its characters, with the rest of the happenings as an interesting backdrop. It could be about removing the barriers, removing the mask and simply seeing things as they are. Of course, you never know for sure, whether its a high powered sex cult or your significant other's fidelity. But at the end of the movie it's well understood they're awake now. They're normal people but desire is strange motivator that leads you to the doorstep of a hooker with some crumbcake before the splash of water to the face that is hearing she has AIDS and seeing that maybe monogamy isn't the worst. And maybe the mysteriousness of the cult is curious enough without needing a murder story.<br /><br />Asides<br /><br />I love the woman with the recently-deceased father who attempts to throw herself at Bill, mainly for marrying a teacher who looks like a poorer, soap opera version of Tom Cruise. The scene is even lit like a soap except for Bill, who of course is only there to provide the perfect words and comfort to deal with loss that her boyfriend cannot.</p><p>269 address as Domino asks Dr. Bill to “come inside” with her. </p><p>Some post on Reddit relating it to the 40 Masonic orders that's pretty interesting as a troll if I could ever find the link again. </p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-71143130047718976362021-02-06T00:46:00.004-06:002021-02-06T00:53:36.477-06:00Do Christians Enjoy Sex?
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifsXyIH64CSEtM0-nrjztpyFimS-RNAecLII-Na4V-oTWFj8qSJn_DwbCWdE4l7gwntKEd75_tg2sj3Teh6AHUPgWYcp8XMiDdtoS75OytUEpyioA-Zdh7VTDyU3vbIdW_71-Hr6yP5xtV/s450/square+andy.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="300" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifsXyIH64CSEtM0-nrjztpyFimS-RNAecLII-Na4V-oTWFj8qSJn_DwbCWdE4l7gwntKEd75_tg2sj3Teh6AHUPgWYcp8XMiDdtoS75OytUEpyioA-Zdh7VTDyU3vbIdW_71-Hr6yP5xtV/s320/square+andy.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Andy Answers<br /></td></tr></tbody></table>The biggest lie Satan ever convinced us of was that he doesn’t exist. The biggest lie the atheist establishment ever sold was that us Christians don’t enjoy sex. But I’m here to convince you outside of <i>The Word</i>, it’s the thing we most enjoy. They call me square, and sure, as a cisgender male I prefer hetero-normative sexual behavior, raw-dogging only one female-born woman per marriage. This does not however mean, just because Christians are known for the rigorous missionary work, that our entire sexual realms are spent in the missionary position (though equally rigorous).<br /><br />After a troubled youth, I graduated from youth group to youth group leader. It’s there I met ...let’s call her Claudette. For once, the tables were turned and I changed myself by vowing to change others in positions before me. After weeks in apprehensive silence, Claude confided to the group a most dark affliction, her desires and actions of a nymphomatic nature. The group gasped and groaned in horror. After the meet, I made it my specific duty to help her with this terrible illness. I took her aside and said, “Claudette, I know about your incredible lust and I personally am going to help you through this, day-by-day, inch-by-inch, minute-by-minute, I will be by your bedside. Or kitchen-side, or public park-side, or reststop-side.” She was a lovely lady only 17 years my junior, meaning that when I could be legally charged as an adult in my state, she was nothing more than a single spermatozoa creating the glint in her father’s eye. We decided to wed that very evening, vowing our love for each-other, and vowing change. A quick 26-hour round-trip road trip to Vegas later, we were spiritually and legally safe to copulate before the eyes of the lord.
<br /><br />
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">But even before marriage, certain biological urges do persist. Claudette, before our engagement, was a prolific wearer of pants presumably from India known as “Yoga.” This is why we save ourselves for marriage. The first time I saw her butt, with the curvature not unlike the moon scenes in Kubrick’s <i>2001</i>, I knew I had to be the First Man on it. I had to plant my stake in it. I had to go over the event horizon in through the blackhole and contemplate god’s grace enveloped in her specific clock in spacetime. And lost in the infinite blackless, of space and of its fabric, of those uber-black pants, I had this compulsion to make Space Jam. Her magnetism held great gravitational pull. There it stayed, ever-ready for a wormhole. Is that not how the Starchild is born? This great desire, burning, yearning, bubbling in the loins, ready to expel its baby-creation elixir like a white snowfall. Through divinity it melts hot unlike snow, and through the friction of passion, vaginal villages burn in embers as if lit by vicious vikings. It is no sin to consummate our marriage as such, forcefully love-making and pillaging the city of gold inside your wedded servant.<br /><br />Yes, I am Christian. But if I am cut, do I not bleed? If I see butt, does not blood coagulate inside my pelvic hose as if it were bitten by the most potent venom of the deadliest rattlesnake? I was bitten, smitten with ordinary lust. All the repression, saving yourself for marriage. It’s there for a reason. Like a slingshot, you are spring-loaded, even literally, for the fateful night marked as ‘wedding day,’ marred by deep-seated psychological scars. Heathens, what they see in others is simply base sexual properties. Me, I have pure desire, I want to stare at a butt, disrobe it, photograph it, videograph it from every angle finally putting those geometry classes to use, inside and out, I want to view a livestream of a colonoscopy and feast my eyes on its rectal character similar to creatures and locations in Dune. I yearn to view firsthand with macro-mode photography and microscopic view the dreamscapes of porous hills with Claudette’s tiny blonde hairs enlarged and looking like the radiating waves of light emanating from the most saintly portraits of La Virgen de <span class="aCOpRe"><span>Guadalupe</span></span>. Beads of sweat cover these dual moons, there as wet proof there is indeed life on Mars. I want to make my way to the crescent valley, the fireswamp of a darkness so deep you can see the stars of the night sky from there - even during the day. These are the images you get in a single instance in a moment of abstract sexual thought, when you have desires fully realized as they’re meant to be, not spoiled and gluing you to your bedsheets after your sixth consecutive Ariana Grande music video (Thank U, Next).
</p><p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-paragraph-type: empty; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><br /></p>
<p style="-qt-block-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">Women are not meant to be objectified. The ideal number of partners is one, or un-ideally for widowers, two. Only disgusting pigs need to bed several woman on Tinder like a meat market, those spoiled, past-due bratwursts disguised with spices of cheap perfume and Louis Vitton cellphone cases few straight men can resist. But resist we must, we salvage an eternity in the process. We are not womanizers like Christian Bale because never would a Christian Bail. Women were not meant to be passed around like buffet tongs. They were meant to be played like classical music, works of art, like a tuba, mouth on the bottom-hole and out comes the melancholic exasperation of ecstasy through the top hole. That’s love. That’s respect. Helping your wife put on her underwear after you make her temporarily unable to walk. That’s love. Making 69 Shades of Grey, because your home video project doesn’t need approval from E. L. James, and as long as there’s consent, you can have subject matter that would make Marquis De Sade blush. That’s respect.<br /><br /><span style="color: #999999;"><i>Square Andy is a Christian, journalist, and recently unemployed</i></span><br /></p><style type="text/css">p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4021724615951999842.post-29365875777408849552021-01-25T23:10:00.002-06:002021-01-26T23:02:57.048-06:00Christopher Nolan: The ‘That’s Clever’ Director<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3BVgS4DMSXdejeG69zjv437snZO_Df0gq3y-QX_6inkik9c-HD0obk3FHLZrshoWJcybMjjbErc2ooBu_Xh3qweEtRx5hHO-Kn4jdTi78W7uRFm9uQzMmF76ByLkr33PAXgcd64RGKvVA/s2000/chris+nolan+looking+into+some+sort+of+camera.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1270" data-original-width="2000" height="406" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3BVgS4DMSXdejeG69zjv437snZO_Df0gq3y-QX_6inkik9c-HD0obk3FHLZrshoWJcybMjjbErc2ooBu_Xh3qweEtRx5hHO-Kn4jdTi78W7uRFm9uQzMmF76ByLkr33PAXgcd64RGKvVA/w640-h406/chris+nolan+looking+into+some+sort+of+camera.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>Christopher Nolan is the epitome of the <i>That’s Clever</i> director. Everyone knows and most acknowledge his strengths, so I’ll get that out of the way before this critique: he and his brother make a solid writing team, he’s visionary, his visual world-building and technical expertise is nearly unmatched, this all makes him one of the best prolific directors of the last 25 years, and his movies are interesting even when they fail, as they’re aiming high enough to make an engrossing spectacle. <br /><p></p><p>Chris is brilliant but also boring, seemingly suffering from the same sort of issues as Alfred Hitchcock, in that his technical expertise didn’t necessarily correlate to strong story-telling. In <i>Tenet</i>, often called the most “Nolan” Nolan film, clearly all but his most devoted fans are going to have a problematic viewing experience. I wonder what motivates him. No one doubts Christopher Nolan is clever and can make a picture. I wonder if it’s as obvious and opaque as intellectual vanity. I question if Nolan’s real talent doesn’t lie more in marketing, not only of his movies, but of himself. Most care less about the movie promo than the fact he’s directed it, some refusing to watch trailers at all and having faith in the brand itself. <br /></p><p>It’s clear from the critical and fan response people are less interested in his latest films. <i>Tenet </i>and <i>Dunkirk’s </i>most impressive accomplishment might be their exclusion in the IMDb top 250. If in the general population it’s well-understood Nolan is the holy grail, it stands to reason Nolan’s only remaining competition is Nolan, and hence the “<i>most</i> Nolan” praise (or criticism) is the natural conclusion as we reach <i>Total Nolan</i>: a Nolan film only Nolan himself, if that, can appreciate. It’s a real possibility. Tarkovsky, often touted as Russia’s Kubrick, created an almost entirely personal and autobiographical film titled <i>The Mirror</i>—it’s meditative and visual qualities make it a curious watch but the disconnect of the performer-audience relationship makes it vacuous. I wouldn’t be surprised if Nolan’s next project is similar, to try to tackle the lack of emotion and sterility of most of his films and try to capture a personal story and nostalgia through his rigorous use of time manipulation and precision. Undeservedly, he’s overlooked by the Academy, but also I understand a reluctance toward movies that appear indifferent to and detached from audiences. Part of this is explained in a brilliant YT video titled “Christopher Nolan’s Exposition Problem,” pointing out the dialogue in his movies often deadens the story-telling, leaving you nowhere to wonder, spelling out every minute detail before you can question it yourself.</p><p> There’s often a missing human element. This divide is the pronounced difference between story-driven and character-driven movies. In being exercises in cleverness, I don’t care for the characters in <i>The Prestige</i>, <i>Tenet</i>, or <i>Inception</i>. They are no different than human set-pieces, the machinations necessary for enabling more stunning visuals. Even in <i>Dunkirk </i>there’s a detachment, each character and their motivations seems randomized and anonymous, and I recognize some value in depicting the valuelessness and facelessness in a war story. Do you care about Cobb seeing his kids, or Cobb seeing his kids allowing you to see some cool shit? Most people are so immersed in only the spectacle they fail to see the target in <i>Inception </i>is actually Cobb, years after its release. And yes, in that there’s a depth of cleverness, but that’s it. It doesn’t enhance the characters themselves or nor does it hint at anything profound. It simply makes it a better crossword puzzle, a better celluloid escape room, a better $10,000 puzzle box to solve on Youtube.<br /></p><p><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4lgH3y0AmIPFDVUD0IuGj5aeWMfelZQ4o76Z132uibfvw0c7dg_MtFPkdVI-GvUtODrseri6st68emjIJ_LtQU2nxpB4jWuqj9DPd29kWkU5J5NqMITrEOyMfUR30m62yEo9Hz57_Xvur/s1280/the+christopher+nolan+of+puzzle+boxes.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4lgH3y0AmIPFDVUD0IuGj5aeWMfelZQ4o76Z132uibfvw0c7dg_MtFPkdVI-GvUtODrseri6st68emjIJ_LtQU2nxpB4jWuqj9DPd29kWkU5J5NqMITrEOyMfUR30m62yEo9Hz57_Xvur/s320/the+christopher+nolan+of+puzzle+boxes.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">If Chris Nolan films were Youtube videos<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p></p><p>Of course, any mention of Nolan that doesn’t acknowledge his material as next to godliness seems to inspire groveling fanboy backlash. But this criticism’s only aim is to offer alignment in how his work is perceived. The Kubrick comparisons are ludicrous. Yes, in a world with an increasingly diminished capacity for attention span the appeal is understandable. But this surface-level reaction does seem for people who haven’t seen a lot of films. You can’t have seen the story-telling efforts of Kieslowski, Kurosawa, Bergman, Miyazaki, Tarkovsky, and look at them in the same way. The antithesis of his work is probably 80s Albert Brooks movies, seeing the world through small subjects and keen insights on interpersonal relationships—an atomic approach to story-telling which is somehow more ambitious and telling. This is the counterpoint to Nolan’s galactic, bigger-picture approach where characters are tertiary. Perhaps that’s why they don’t completely work. When humans are secondary, and the zoomed-out, cosmic take of story-telling is in the foreground, like in <i>2001: A Space Odyssey</i>, there’s so much we <i>don’t</i> know the only acceptable substitute might be the mysterious. So, by comparison, in <i>2001 </i>you have the ambiguity of the stargate and the starchild, and with <i>Interstellar</i> you have the incredible tesseract setpiece and visual experience juxtaposed with the unfortunate voiceover of a robot explaining everything, an otherworldly sequence with the human element shoehorned in. This accessibility also placates the human desire for easy answers. It’s almost as if Nolan would be better if he picked a side, instead having a foot in either world. But with this pretense there are such high ambitions, the risk of failure is equally high. </p><p> To paraphrase James Watson: In order to break new ground you are almost by definition unqualified to do so.</p><p>And that’s my main criticism. With <i>Tenet </i>all his flaws become ever-more apparent. I mean, it’s so bare-bones and indifferent to anything but story mechanics the main character is simply called protagonist. That’s my takeaway for most Nolan films: "Well, that was clever." But that’s it. And that’s fine. But I would love to see his technical expertise in conveying visual events applied to psychological mood and human emotion like Scorsese did in <i>Taxi Driver</i>, or Demme in <i>Silence of the Lambs</i>, or Elem Klimov in <i>Come and See</i>. This too is a relevant factor in technical mastery. Or the use of subtlety and ambiguity like in <i>2001</i>, the films of P.T. Anderson, <i>Blade Runner</i>, Paul Schrader’s <i>First Reformed</i>, etc.. And as I’ve seen the director in recent times since lockdowns swept the world, he’s moving away from Amish attitudes toward media and embracing fans through podcasts and delving into the joys of cynicism by bashing HBO Max and fighting the death of cinema. I await him conspiring for artistic control and against the studios and finally being the fully-realized, god-tier director decades of hype have crowned him. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0