Menu Bar
q335r49's Comments
Re: Mister Rogers the Clown
haha... oh man... this is gold
By: q335r49
Re: Marilyn Manson In Bowling For Columbine
Uuugh ... if everyone on the internet agrees that Manson is "insightful" or "thinking" -- that is a sure sign that he most certainly is not.
Have a bit of critical rigor -- the president influencing violent behavior? The evil media? He sounds like a homeless hippie to me.
Trust me guys, all these rock and roll f*** are the same, they are all nice guys, because they are women -- the only force in the world, for them, is public opinion.
"Pumped full of fear"?? Like at a concert? I love watching a turnip farmer try to explain modern life in terms of turnips.
Have a bit of critical rigor -- the president influencing violent behavior? The evil media? He sounds like a homeless hippie to me.
Trust me guys, all these rock and roll f*** are the same, they are all nice guys, because they are women -- the only force in the world, for them, is public opinion.
"Pumped full of fear"?? Like at a concert? I love watching a turnip farmer try to explain modern life in terms of turnips.
By: q335r49
Re: Comedian Goes on Anti-Fox News Rant during Live Broadcast
Jesus Christ, the liberals are just getting dumber and dumber. Their first mistake is always thinking that conservatives are stupid rather than deluded and evil. That's typically because they themselves are stupid.
By: q335r49
Re: Simpsons: Sadgasm, Homer Grunge
Wow, yet another cultural phenomenon diluted by the simpsons.
By: q335r49
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
Guys, I don't care a bit about (classical) morality. Stupid people kill themselves all the time for what they believe is right -- good and evil, as are all oppositions, is the sign of stupidity, and ... unfortuneately, it is mandatory in elections.
More fundamental than values is intelligence and JUDGMENT, and with intelligence comes a generosity of spirit that is more moral than any superficial "value". Only with intelligence and a kind of cosmopolitanism does one realize that there is no black and white, and that it's not about self interests, and that one doesn't have an obligation to one's party/school/race, etc. -- and one can maintain, therefore, a kind of independence amidst all the fools who act out of self-interest merely out of stupidity. Ordinary people see everything as a self-interest, they get into fights sooo easily.
How I know Obama is NOT right for president: because he seems to genuinely believe the idiotic rhetoric of "honesty", and the opposition between "past and future". Obama does not seem to know ANYTHING about how politics works, the way to confront an ancient machinery is not with an emtpy mind and an open discussion. Obama is an idiot. It's like showing up for an exam with a commitment to be honest and virtuous. Again, that stupid simplicity over sophistication and JUDGEMENT. Bravery, judgment, independence, and sophistication are all hallmarks of great statesmen, NEVER simplicity and self-righteousness.
More fundamental than values is intelligence and JUDGMENT, and with intelligence comes a generosity of spirit that is more moral than any superficial "value". Only with intelligence and a kind of cosmopolitanism does one realize that there is no black and white, and that it's not about self interests, and that one doesn't have an obligation to one's party/school/race, etc. -- and one can maintain, therefore, a kind of independence amidst all the fools who act out of self-interest merely out of stupidity. Ordinary people see everything as a self-interest, they get into fights sooo easily.
How I know Obama is NOT right for president: because he seems to genuinely believe the idiotic rhetoric of "honesty", and the opposition between "past and future". Obama does not seem to know ANYTHING about how politics works, the way to confront an ancient machinery is not with an emtpy mind and an open discussion. Obama is an idiot. It's like showing up for an exam with a commitment to be honest and virtuous. Again, that stupid simplicity over sophistication and JUDGEMENT. Bravery, judgment, independence, and sophistication are all hallmarks of great statesmen, NEVER simplicity and self-righteousness.
By: q335r49
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
I think Mitt Romney came across better, by far, in this interview. I'm tired of these people thinking that SIMPLICITY is the answer to our problems (Larsen, Obama, 1% tax etc.) Guys -- simplicity is the way you get votes (I am good and honest, my opponent is a coward) not a way to confront reality. The best way to confront simple-minded fools, who confuse mass appeal with actual politics is -- yes, to laugh at them.
The announcer is nothing but an anti-intellectual demagogue, as are most people in show business. Simplicity is a way to appeal to stupid people, as if equality had anything to do with numbers (flat tax, 1% etc.). Being president is not about being a simple man -- Bush proved that -- it's about knowing what to do with secrets, knowing there is no right and wrong, knowing things are complicated rather than simple, and being able to think through these things. So, I'm voting for Clinton.
The announcer is nothing but an anti-intellectual demagogue, as are most people in show business. Simplicity is a way to appeal to stupid people, as if equality had anything to do with numbers (flat tax, 1% etc.). Being president is not about being a simple man -- Bush proved that -- it's about knowing what to do with secrets, knowing there is no right and wrong, knowing things are complicated rather than simple, and being able to think through these things. So, I'm voting for Clinton.
By: q335r49
Re: Derren Brown - Russian Roulette
"I believe Darren uses the common belief that we're all unconsciously influenced by hidden messages to the advantage of his gig."
In other words, you are saying that suspense is a tension and a resolution, the latter is always the discovery of something we already know, and in this case something planted there. Very much like that which you critique, who claimed that Darren planted the word ONE without the participant realizing it -- this likeness doesn't make it wrong btw. Darren Brown would then be -- not a genuine manipulator -- but a manipulator of manipulation, manipulating the ways that manipulation occurs. Incidentally, it may be compared to reality porn, porn always being about manipulation, or perhaps anything having to do with women. I can only watch Bangbus, for example, because only that seems credible or not fake, but of course, even that is still planted.
What you are doing is halting a regime of study where this act can be reflected on for evidence on a subconscious event (of cause and effect) and proposing that the manipulation extends to the very planting of that regime. In general, we are always within a regime of manipulation, blindly finding things that have already been planted, but not by a person or a human agency. (So we are not conspiracy theorists!) Whatever labor we propose (even what you propose) is always a digging up of something that is already there -- the key is to think beyond the Darren Brown as a person or a mastermind, but perhaps of the media itself.
In other words, you are saying that suspense is a tension and a resolution, the latter is always the discovery of something we already know, and in this case something planted there. Very much like that which you critique, who claimed that Darren planted the word ONE without the participant realizing it -- this likeness doesn't make it wrong btw. Darren Brown would then be -- not a genuine manipulator -- but a manipulator of manipulation, manipulating the ways that manipulation occurs. Incidentally, it may be compared to reality porn, porn always being about manipulation, or perhaps anything having to do with women. I can only watch Bangbus, for example, because only that seems credible or not fake, but of course, even that is still planted.
What you are doing is halting a regime of study where this act can be reflected on for evidence on a subconscious event (of cause and effect) and proposing that the manipulation extends to the very planting of that regime. In general, we are always within a regime of manipulation, blindly finding things that have already been planted, but not by a person or a human agency. (So we are not conspiracy theorists!) Whatever labor we propose (even what you propose) is always a digging up of something that is already there -- the key is to think beyond the Darren Brown as a person or a mastermind, but perhaps of the media itself.
By: q335r49
Re: Nirvana: In Bloom
And yeah, why did he kill himself, comedians don't kill themselves
By: q335r49
Re: Nirvana: In Bloom
Wait -- are the lyrics: "He's the one who likes all our pretty songs but he doesn't know what it means?" Wieeerd
By: q335r49
Re: Masculinity in Disney Films
I would argue precisely the opposite -- that images of masculinity allow people to become self-conscious, so that I am no longer intimidated by a towering physique, and can say, "Wow, you are quite a specimen and probably can kick my ass". This self-consciousness allows people to think of appearance as MERE appearance -- and NOT something to be blindly immitated. This is, in fact, the point of the portrayal of Gason in beauty and the beast.
But, yeah, this is a very stupid "study".
But, yeah, this is a very stupid "study".
By: q335r49
Re: Lee Silver and Human Cloning: Why is There a Fuss?
Good response -- I don't know what the hell you are talking about, but I'm sure there ARE possible disastrous side effects of cloning.
My critique -- this is basically a "negative Nancy" argument -- it attempts to limit the possibilities of disaster by reducing the applications to triviality. So it is very unimaginative and very non-speculative, reducing a scientific breakthrough to "aiding old hags getting knocked up". It may very well be true that cloning applications are trivial -- in which case, there is as little reason to argue for it as to ban it. It basically obviates the need FOR an argument by trivializing the subject.
Counterargument: Something COULD go wrong -- it is utterly impossible to argue otherwise, since you can only keep on asserting that cloning has not gone wrong, as far as you know. And since the reasons FOR cloning are so trivial, then you would agree that there is no reason to open up the possibility of disaster simply so old hags can get knocked up. Therefore, cloning should be banned.
My critique -- this is basically a "negative Nancy" argument -- it attempts to limit the possibilities of disaster by reducing the applications to triviality. So it is very unimaginative and very non-speculative, reducing a scientific breakthrough to "aiding old hags getting knocked up". It may very well be true that cloning applications are trivial -- in which case, there is as little reason to argue for it as to ban it. It basically obviates the need FOR an argument by trivializing the subject.
Counterargument: Something COULD go wrong -- it is utterly impossible to argue otherwise, since you can only keep on asserting that cloning has not gone wrong, as far as you know. And since the reasons FOR cloning are so trivial, then you would agree that there is no reason to open up the possibility of disaster simply so old hags can get knocked up. Therefore, cloning should be banned.
By: q335r49
Re: Joe Rogan: The Mysteries of Egypt
Oh the arrogance of young people who think they understand enough of the world to decisively judge whether an idea is original or not :-)
... and the fights over patents, copyrights, orginality, etc.. And the ignorant fights and vain struggles of the atheists and evolutionists, etc.. There are original people, but they live after their time and or appreciated by a select few in their lifetime-- e.g. Stendahl, who bought a lottery ticket, "To be read 100 years from now". It's difficult to recognize that great literature is enduring because of the radicality of the ideas rather than because of its "emotionality" or "humanity".
Regarding the "originality" of this piece of stand up -- I guess it's unoriginal if you consider the narrative and reduce everything down to a series of logical hypotheses, but the premise of the joke is not reducible in such a way, of course. Just to throw something out there, the real premise of the joke may be the way he tells the joke AS an idiot, a little peice of self-depracation. Rogan is kind of the "idiot man", and he is telling the joke as a victor after a great injustice has been performed. If so, then maybe we can trace this back to Futurama, which often thinks about history as a series of glaring injustices that are laughed at by the victor.
So -- it's all in how careful you read. :-)
... and the fights over patents, copyrights, orginality, etc.. And the ignorant fights and vain struggles of the atheists and evolutionists, etc.. There are original people, but they live after their time and or appreciated by a select few in their lifetime-- e.g. Stendahl, who bought a lottery ticket, "To be read 100 years from now". It's difficult to recognize that great literature is enduring because of the radicality of the ideas rather than because of its "emotionality" or "humanity".
Regarding the "originality" of this piece of stand up -- I guess it's unoriginal if you consider the narrative and reduce everything down to a series of logical hypotheses, but the premise of the joke is not reducible in such a way, of course. Just to throw something out there, the real premise of the joke may be the way he tells the joke AS an idiot, a little peice of self-depracation. Rogan is kind of the "idiot man", and he is telling the joke as a victor after a great injustice has been performed. If so, then maybe we can trace this back to Futurama, which often thinks about history as a series of glaring injustices that are laughed at by the victor.
So -- it's all in how careful you read. :-)
By: q335r49
Re: Tim and Eric: Jeff Goldblum for Waitmate
I like it too, these guys have been watching David Lynch. I like the memory loss series, but they are all pretty good. You people think they are TRYING to be absurd, but no one tries to be absurd, all humor is is people catching on to suggestive bits here and there -- they tell "jokes" that you can't really tell your frieds -- i.e. non-conceptual, no punchline, etc. But some of the stuff is cool and wierd and creepy.
By: q335r49
